Patricia Hewitt: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that in the past three years the budget for the national health service in Milton Keynes has increased by more than £47 million. In the current two years, it will receive a further £55.6 million increase. I congratulate the staff of Milton Keynes primary care trust and others working in the local NHS who have made difficult decisions this year to reduce their deficit, although they will need longer than this year to do so.I suggest that the hon. Gentleman speak to hishon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who said in the House yesterday that primary care trusts
	"receive a given amount of public expenditure resources."
	He might have said they receive more than every before. He continued:
	"They should live within the overall resource envelope.
	He said that a PCT
	"has a responsibility not to spend more than the resources that are voted to it through the House."—[ Official Report, 12 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 41.]
	Does the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) agree with that, or not?

Paul Burstow: To balance its books, Epsom andSt. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust is making cuts of £24 million in beds and clinical staff over the coming year. As part of that, it has a programme of cutting one in four beds across the trust. In October this year, it closed one ward at St. Helier hospital and reduced another from 26 to 14 beds, only to decide in December to reverse those decisions and reopen the wards. Surely that is the sort of false economy that undermines and disrupts staff teams, damages morale and puts patient care and safety at risk.

Andy Burnham: I admire the hon. Gentleman's opportunism in asking his question during a question on London, but I accept that his constituents do use hospital services in the London area. It is important to get the right model of care in London to ensure that its health economies are stable in the future. ProfessorSir Ara Darzi is currently conducting a review across London to develop the right model of care and the right balance between high-quality tertiary and secondary services and good-quality services in every community. He is therefore taking forward precisely the issues that the hon. Gentleman is asking us to take on board, and he will report in due course.

Ivan Lewis: We recently announced the new deal for carers, a package of support including£25 million for short breaks for carers in crisis situations in every council, £3 million towards a national helpline for carers, and £5 million for an expert carers' programme. The Chancellor has also announced that we will be holding the most far-reaching national consultation ever on the role of carers. In the months ahead, we will invite carers' groups and the voluntary sector to help us to design a modern vision for caring. That will inform the development of a new cross-government national strategy.

Ivan Lewis: I understand the anxiety and insecurity felt by the older people affected by that decision, and also by their families and the staff who work in those homes. The local authority must make decisions in consultation with the affected parties. I have previously told my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) that if it would be helpful, I would be willing to meet those who are most affected. However, it is only fair to say that we cannot any longer make decisions about the best way to provide local services from offices in Westminster and Whitehall. What we can do is support that local decision-making process and make sure that the people who are most affected feel that they are listened to and respected.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will be aware that many carers are unpaid and need to have training. What is he doing to ensure that they get the training they need to support their family members and to look after them in a proper manner?

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As part of the new deal for carers, we announced two weeks ago the creation of an expert carers programme. That will specifically do two things: first, provide training to carers on the practical issues that they need to feel comfortable with and confident about in terms of lifting, handling and supporting whoever they are caring for in their own home; and secondly, boost the confidence, knowledge and expertise of carers so that they feel that they can fight for the rights of the person whom they are caring for and relate on a more equal basis with professionals. Those will be the two objectives of our expert carers programme. I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue we are debating will become increasingly important, especially given the demographic changes that are taking place in our society.

Ivan Lewis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We introduced the annual carer's grant, we announced the new deal for carers a couple of weeks ago, and we are also giving new rights and a new pension entitlement to carers, but there is a lot more that we have to do. The reality is that our society is changing. People are living longer and in doing so are developing an increasing number of frail conditions, which is asking new questions not only of the Government and the state, but of families. Disabled people, thankfully, are now having fuller and longer lives. The current review, led by the Treasury, on the needs of children with disabilities and their families and carers, is incredibly important. Wherever possible, these issues should of course be of a non-party political nature, but in the end it comes down to hard choices about the level of investment that the Government are willing to make in these services, and whether we are willing to prioritise families and carers in the context of the changing demographics to which I have referred.

Andrew George: When Ministers held the proverbial gun to the heads of primary care trusts and told them to privatise the easiest elective procedures—or else—was the Secretary of State aware that under European competition law, she was opening a Pandora's box in that if she wished to run the NHS by market rules, she would have to play by those rules—even to the point that that would perpetually restrict her capacity to intervene to protect the public interest?

Patricia Hewitt: I do not accept for one moment the hon. Gentleman's accusation. It is a great pity that he does not recognise the contribution that the independent sector is making at the Bodmin treatment centre, for instance, or—in a different part of his region—at the Shepton Mallet independent sector treatment centre. The latter is not only giving the patients whom it receives very good and much faster care, it has also led Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust to change the way that it organises its services, making it one of the first hospitals that will achieve for most of its patients the 18 weeks target—and a year ahead of the goal that we set.

David Heath: That was just typical: I asked three specific questions and received not a single reply from the Secretary of State. I thought that she would at least quote the results of the  Health Service Journal survey of chief executives of trusts across the country, which revealed that 50 per cent. of primary care trusts are delaying operations; that 47 per cent. of all trusts may, have made or intend to make redundancies; and that73 per cent. of PCTs are restricting access to treatment. Is not the conundrum this—that at a time when there is record cash going into the NHS and welcome investment in capital projects, we nevertheless have cuts in treatment? How can that be?

Patricia Hewitt: At least the hon. Gentleman and his party voted for those extra resources. I am surprised, however, that he did not refer to the fact that the NHS in Somerset will get additional funding of almost£120 million over the current year and next year. That is being reflected in the improvements taking place in Minehead hospital, the new cancer centre in Taunton and Somerset and the new community hospital at Frome. We believe that what we need is fair funding for the NHS—record funding for the NHS—and the best care for patients within the budget available. I know that the Liberal party has never been very keen on sound public finances or value for money, but the Government will continue to ensure that patients get the best possible value from the record investment that we have made.

Charlotte Atkins: Is my hospital trust typical? The university hospital of North Staffordshire announced 1,000 redundancies as a result of its deficit, but ultimately only 150 redundancies resulted, two thirds of which were voluntary. Clearly, any redundancy is a matter of regret, particularly in an area like north Staffordshire, but where does that leave the Opposition's claims of 20,000 redundancies nationwide?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. In striking contrast to the scaremongering that we get from the Conservative party about 20,000 redundancies, over the current financial year there have been just over 1,400 redundancies, the great majority in management and administrative jobs. Although it is of course difficult for the individuals concerned—we are ensuring that the NHS supports them in these difficult times—it is a very different picture from what the Conservative party and some of the media have been telling people.

Tim Loughton: What the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) failed to mention was that the  Health Service Journal survey also revealed that seven out of 10 PCT chief executives agreed that patient care would suffer because of restricting access to treatments. Does the Secretary of State think that they should be applauded as good financial planners, encouraged by her Department to fudge the books and please the accountants, or is it a false economy that forces consultants to twiddle their thumbs for several months while sick patients are denied the treatments that they need?

Patricia Hewitt: I very much regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman completely fails to pay credit to the NHS managers and staff who, in a very difficult year, have got a grip on NHS finances and will achieve financial balance at the end of this month, putting the NHS in a far stronger position. May I suggest that he has a word with his hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), just two seats along, who told theHouse only yesterday that it was the statutoryresponsibility of—

Brian Iddon: Will my hon. Friend congratulate all the staff at the Royal Bolton hospital for saving lives, increasing efficiency and cutting waste by adopting the lean style of management? What can his Department do to spread best practice like that throughout the national health service?

Andy Burnham: Staff in the health service arerightly suspicious of politicians or NHS managers who appear to have swallowed a management consultancy textbook. However, I went to the Royal Bolton hospital with my hon. Friend and, like him, I was incredibly impressed by what I saw. The key principle of the lean management process is that staff lead the change. They are empowered to make changes and drive through the programme on the wards. My hon. Friend's hospital trust has seen a 30 per cent. reduction in length of stay for trauma, a 37 per cent. reduction in post-operative mortality and a cut in the processing time for blood samples from five hours to 30 minutes. Those are the huge benefits resulting from staff leading change in the hospital.

John Robertson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a statutory right to rehabilitation leave for newly disabled people and people whose existing impairments change; and for connected purposes.
	Every year, 25,000 people leave work due to work-related illnesses. Under the Welfare Reform Bill, the Government are committed to achieving an employment rate of 80 per cent. My Bill would ensure that people who develop a disability during their working life, or whose existing disability deteriorates, are supported to remain in employment, where that is practicable.
	An example of the sort of person that my Bill would help is contained in the report from the Stroke Association entitled "Getting Back to Work After Stroke". After13 years of loyal service to her employers, Janet Nicholson was not accommodated back to work after she suffered a stroke. Her employers told her that she had to leave because of her ill health. They would not pay her a pension or discuss any alternative employment opportunities in the company. In the 21st century, in a country that is recognised to be leading the world in caring, that is unacceptable.
	The type of employment retention policy with which this Bill is concerned is known as rehabilitation leave, or disability leave. The use of the word "leave" implies that the person in question is keen to get back into work. That is a feature of the Warwick agreement between the Government and the trade union movement, in which it is made clear that everyone has a right to employment. Such a system would mean that people like Janet Nicholson would not be treated unfairly by their employers, but instead would receive the help, support and encouragement needed to help them back into work. Companies, while being obliged to retain and help the people involved, would receive Government help and assistance.
	Smaller companies would need more help, both financially and in terms of training. Larger companies such as BT already do their best to accommodate the unfortunate people who find themselves in the situation that I have described. One successful example involving BT is the case of Martha Wiseman, who had 18 months off work as a result of stress and anxiety and was eventually diagnosed as having clinical depression. By April 2006, she was getting much better, and BT expressed an interest in her returning to work. Gradually, and with her doctor's agreement, she was able to return full time. Martha feels that, over the past six months, she has progressed to being 90 per cent. okay.
	Martha says that she was treated very well by BT during her sick leave, and especially by her manager, who met her regularly to keep her in contact with office happenings and progress. Those meetings helped Martha, and her manager gauged how she was doing and when she would be able to return to work. Her manager and BT should be congratulated on the work that they did with Martha.
	This Bill is needed to support the Welfare Reform Bill, and all parties agree that the numbers of people who are unemployed and claiming benefit should be reduced. It is illogical to support helping disabled people to get off benefits while allowing those who develop a disability to get laid off with a pension or to be forced into claiming incapacity benefit. That is no help to the worker involved, the company or the country—everybody loses.
	My attention was first drawn to this problem by the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which says that about 66,000 registered blind and partially sighted people of working age are not in work. A further 4,000 people lose their sight each year, of whom 1,000 are forced into unemployment. Those figures will not help the Government reach their ambitious target of 80 per cent. employment.
	Current Government programmes such as access to work and pathways to work make available a great deal of support and equipment to assist employers who employ people with disabilities. Pathways to work was developed to provide greater support to help people claiming incapacity benefit to return to, or get closer to, the labour market. About 9,000 pathways to work interviews have been conducted, and national rates for voluntary participation have averaged 8 per cent. of all customers interviewed. In Glasgow, I am pleased to say, that figure has reached 20 per cent.
	Among the companies that have made use of the Government programmes and piloted schemes implementing employment retention policies are Lloyds TSB, Barclays bank, Royal Mail, McDonald's and BT. They should all be congratulated on their efforts, but there is still more that could be done to encourage other companies to follow their example. That is especially true for those small and medium-sized companies that might encounter financial or training problems. That was recognised by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who has responsibilities for delivery and reform. At the Labour party conference he said that
	"maybe there should be a legal right to rehabilitation leave."
	There is no maybe about it—there should be such a right.
	I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was looking into introducing such a Bill. He is now a patron of the RNIB, an organisation with which I have been working on the Bill for some time. I was as grateful for my right hon. Friend's backing for my private Member's Bill last year as I am for his assistance now. With his help and guidance we may see the measure passed in the near future.
	The Bill also has the backing of the Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Recently, the Disability Rights Commission expressed support for such legislation, encouraging the Government, employers and health services to develop proposals for the disability-related absences that are crucial to an individual's recovery. My last ten-minute Bill on the subject was backed by the CBI and although no one from the organisation has contacted me yet, I am sure that the CBI is still committed to protecting companies and their skilled employees.
	We must not fail those trying to cope with disabilities; they need our help and support. In fact, it is the duty of Government, business and communities to support those individuals. Being made unemployed through ill health demoralises the individual's confidence and can often lead to long periods of unemployment and depression. As well as the effect on the individual, there is also an impact on the economy, as many disabled people never return to work. The result is a strain on the state and a burden on pension funds and benefit payments; there can even be additional recruitment costs for employers in replacing and training staff.
	Through the Bill, the Government, at relatively little cost, will be able to ensure that any regulatory burden on employers is kept to a minimum. It would be an investment in the short term from which employers and employees would reap the benefits, and in the long term it would be an investment for the Government through benefits savings and tax collected.
	I was pleased to be a member of the Public Bill Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill, where we recently discussed in detail a number of issues related to my Bill. However, I was disappointed that unfortunately, despite cross-party support, including that of the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander)—both of whom were complimentary about my endeavours to raise the matter in Committee—my proposal for an element of employment retention and rehabilitation leave was ruled out. In Committee, I was informed that my proposal fell within the remit of health, not of welfare reform, but I believe that as it had all-party support it would have been accepted and that the only debate we would be having now would be how to implement it.
	The Government have put employment at the heart of their agenda over the past 10 years and have been supported by many Members on both sides of the House. I ask them to take a positive step forward and support the Bill. It would need little investment, which would be paid back many times over, but what would it mean for those affected? It would be priceless.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by John Robertson, Jim Sheridan, Miss Anne Begg, Mr. David Blunkett, Mr. Jimmy Hood, John Bercow, Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, Julie Morgan, Danny Alexander, Mr. Mike Weir and Ann McKechin.

John Robertson accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a statutory right to rehabilitation leavefor newly disabled people and people whose existing impairments change; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 May, and to be printed [Bill 79].

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 3— Role and objectives of the National Statistician—
	'(1) The role and objectives of the National Statistician shall include—
	(a) producing statistics;
	(b) co-ordinating statistical planning and production across government departments; and
	(c) promoting consistency in the production of statistics across the United Kingdom.
	(2) The National Statistician shall be the Government's chief advisor on statistics, including on matters relating to the planning, production and quality of official statistics.
	(3) The National Statistician shall provide professional leadership to all persons within government who are engaged in statistical production or release.'.
	Amendment No. 42, in clause 5, page 3, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—
	'(b) employed to operate independently of the Board with scrutiny and oversight of the role provided by the Board.'.
	Amendment No. 8, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, leave out 'Board' and insert 'National Statistician'.
	Amendment No. 9, in clause 7, page 4, line 21, leave out subsection (1).
	Government amendment No. 48
	Amendment No. 1, in clause 7, page 4, line 22, after 'safeguarding', insert 'for the public good'.
	Amendment No. 43, in clause 8, page 4, line 39, at end insert—
	'(4) The Board shall have responsibility to monitor and assess the performance of the National Statistician against the assigned responsibilities.'.
	Amendment No. 10, in clause 18, page 8, line 17 , leave out 'Board' and insert 'National Statistician'.
	Amendment No. 11, in clause 18, page 8, line 19, leave out 'Board' and insert 'National Statistician'.
	Amendment No. 12, in clause 18, page 8, line 21 , leave out 'Board' and insert 'National Statistician'.
	Amendment No. 14, in clause 18, page 8, line 25, leave out 'Board' and insert 'National Statistician'.
	Amendment No. 45, in clause 28, page 12, line 17, at end insert—
	'(5) The National Statistician is to be the Government's principal advisor on statistics and shall provide professional leadership to all persons engaged in statistical production and publication.'.
	Amendment No. 15, in clause 29, page 12, line 19, leave out 'Board' and insert
	'executive office created under the provisions of subsection (5), below'.
	Amendment No. 39, page 12, line 27, at end insert—
	'(3A) The National Statistician shall—
	(a) promote the coordination of statistical planning and production across government; and
	(b) promote the production of statistics that are consistent across the UK.'.
	Amendment No. 46, page 12, line 28 , after 'may', insert 'not'.
	Amendment No. 47, page 12, line 29, leave out 'not'.

Theresa Villiers: New clauses 1 and 3 and amendments Nos. 8 to 15 in this group seek to clarify the respective functions of the new statistics board and the National Statistician. I am happy to say that they have much in common with amendments Nos. 39, 43, 45, 46 and47 from the Liberal Democrats. There is little in the Bill about the role of the National Statistician. Dr. Ivan Fellegi, who is one of the most highly respected statisticians in the world and who is chief statistician of Canada, told the Treasury Committee that the weak role assigned to the National Statistician in the Government's proposals was "a major shortcoming". The Select Committee felt that the proposals needed major strengthening on that point and the Opposition agree.
	We would like the Bill to clarify and strengthen the role of the National Statistician in three key areas. First, it should be the National Statistician, not the board, who should be responsible for the production of the Office for National Statistics statistics, so that executive and supervisory functions are separated. Secondly, the Bill should emphasise the National Statistician's duty to co-ordinate statistics in order to mitigate some of the inevitable drawbacks of our decentralised system for statistics. Thirdly, we wish to see the National Statistician's status and authority as the leader of the Government's statistical services acknowledged and enhanced by the Bill.
	If I may, I will speak to new clause 1 at the conclusion of my remarks, since it is interlinked with my third point and various elements of the other amendments in the group. I turn first to new clause 3 and amendments Nos. 3 to 15. We believe that the National Statistician, rather than the board, should be responsible for the production of official statistics, but not for all official statistics—only for those now produced by the ONS. We do not call for an end to the decentralised model that currently operates in the United Kingdom for producing statistics, but we do seek to ensure that there is a separation between those responsible for producing statistics and those responsible for regulating and scrutinising that production process.
	In a number of instances, as we have acknowledged throughout the debate in Parliament, the Bill represents a step in the right direction—a step that we believe is too timid, but, nevertheless, one that will in the main help to enhance the credibility of Government statistics. However, in this context, we believe that the Bill involves a step backwards. It removes one of the limited existing safeguards in relation to the Government statistical system. The Bill proposes to merge the Statistics Commission and the ONS. Under the Bill, the commission's function of scrutinising statistics and the ONS's function of producing them will both be carried out by the new statistics board. The Opposition believe that losing a fearless and independent watchdog and combining scrutiny and production functions will significantly undermine the effectiveness of the Government's proposals. Amendments Nos. 8 to 15 seek to take the board out of direct involvement with statistical production. They remove key production functions from the board and vest them in the National Statistician, leaving the board tasked with scrutinising her activities and those of the ONS, and to a lesser extent those of the departmental statistical services.

Theresa Villiers: Statistics have many purposes, one of the most crucial of which is informing decision making in government, in local government—I know that that is a matter of importance to the right hon. Gentleman—and in business. Statistics allow international organisations to assess the performance of the UK economy. Official statistics have a range of vital functions.
	Let me turn to the objective of our amendments. There is considerable confusion in the statistical community about the way in which the Bill allocates functions and responsibilities to different entities, especially regarding the allocation of functions between the board and the National Statistician. In short, it is not easy to say exactly who will do what and who will be accountable to whom. When I asked the Financial Secretary to give the Public Bill Committee an example of a similar institutional structure that was in operation in the UK or internationally, he was not able to provide one and said that there were no direct comparators. He effectively acknowledged to the Committee that the proposal in the Bill represents more or less uncharted territory.
	On Second Reading, the Minister was asked a question about the person to whom queries about the way in which the census deals with matters relating to the Sikh community should be addressed under the new structure. He said that such a technical query relating to methodology would be dealt with by the National Statistician at present, and that that would be unlikely to change under the proposed structure. However, the Bill expressly provides for the board to have a role in considering that type of methodological question. It is true that the Government have tried to provide for a separation of the functions of the board by creating a new statutory head of assessment. They claim that that will mean that production and scrutiny functions will be kept separate during day-to-day operations. However, such a separation is inconsistent with clause 29(1), which makes the National Statistician the chief executive of the board. That measure leads one to expect that she will have an executive remit on all the board's activities, whether they are assessment or production. We have tabled amendments to address that situation.
	The problem of the blurring of the functions of the board and the National Statistician is exacerbated by clause 29(4), which gives the board the right to substitute its decision for that of the National Statistician. I believe that that problem is highlighted by Lib Dem amendments Nos. 46 and 47. The Government's attempt to provide for an internal split of responsibilities is insufficient to deal with the concerns expressed by many during the consultation about the conflict of interest to which the structure proposed in the Bill will give rise. As the North East Regional Information Partnership has pointed out, the board "will not be detached". In short, the board will be judge and jury in its own case.
	The problem is best illustrated by considering what would happen if a complaint about a decision were made by a member of the public. At present, someone making a complaint about a decision made by the ONS can go to the Statistics Commission, if the ONS refuses to respond to his concern. Under the new structure proposed in the Bill, a complainant will take his concerns to the board. However, the board would have been responsible for making the decision about which the complaint had been made. In a real sense, the board would have been the entity that made the decision, given that the Bill merges the ONS into the board. The board would thus be asked in such a situation to rule on whether its own decision was correct. The chairman of the board could regularly find himself in the embarrassing position of having to issue a rebuke or correction to himself. If the board decided that the approach was correct, a complainant could well feel that the failure to impose a sanction resulted from not an impartial assessment of the correctness of the approach taken, but the board's desire not to admit fault in its statistical production. No doubt the statistical production kitemark is being produced with the board's imprimatur. The Royal Statistical Society has pointed out that it is difficult to envisage how the board will be able to command public confidence in its impartiality in such a situation.
	The practical problems with such arrangements have been debated at length in the House in the context of the BBC. Many people, including the Burns panel, have stated that arrangements whereby the BBC regulates its own output are unsustainable. The conflict that we are discussing is even more stark than the conflict in the case of the BBC, as the BBC's regulatory function is confined to its own output, whereas the board's remitis wider. It would be difficult for the Statistics Commission to hold the statistical system to account as effectively as it has done if it had responsibility for running the Office for National Statistics, too.
	The concern was expressed repeatedly during the consultation. To take just two examples, Jill Tuffnell, head of research for Cambridgeshire county council, said on behalf of the Central and Local Government Information Partnership that a much clearer divide was needed between scrutiny and operational functions. The statistics users forum stated that it did not believe that it was good governance, or conducive to restoring or maintaining public trust in the system, for the same body to be responsible for the delivery of statistics and for ensuring quality and adherence to standards. It said that the proposed removal of the Statistics Commission would eliminate a check on the system and replace it with a system that at least appears to be weaker.
	We hope that the Government will listen to the concerns of the experts who use official statistics every day, and we can see small signs of movement in Government amendment No. 48. In Committee, the Government had the embarrassment of having to vote down an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) about the purpose of the board. The amendment said that the board should seek to ensure that the statistical system served the public good. I was surprised that the Government sought to vote down an amendment of that sort, but they have tried to remedy the problem in amendment No. 48. However, although that amendment may give us more of a clue about the objectives of the board, it does nothing to deal with the structural problems that I outlined.

Rob Marris: I may have got lost somewhere in the hon. Lady's amendments, but I understand the separation that she seeks to achieve through them. I may have missed something, but having read her amendments, I do not think that they would remove the National Statistician from the board. If I am right about that, and her amendments would leave the National Statistician on the board, is that not a contradiction in her argument? I do not think that she has tabled an amendment to remove the National Statistician from the board; why is that?

Rob Marris: Amendment No. 9 would leave out clause 7(1), but how would new clause 3 improveclause 7(2)—I do not think that the hon. Lady tabled an amendment to remove that provision. The explanatory notes are as helpful as ever, and paragraph 47 on page 8 refers to "timeliness and comparability". Surely, her proposal is already in the Bill?

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification. Clause 7 refers only to the board. The change that we would like to see is the National Statistician having a remit to drive forward consistency and co-ordination of statistics. My apologies if I did not understand the hon. Gentleman's point initially. The Bill provides for the board to perform certain functions, but we need a clearer steer that the National Statistician should be involved with them. That is the purpose of this group of amendments.
	The Opposition's new clauses and amendments highlight a number of important duties for the National Statistician to carry out, but there can be few of greater importance than the third and last point that I shall raise in relation to this group. New clause 3(3) and Liberal Democrat amendment No. 45 propose that the National Statistician should be acknowledged in the Bill as the Government's chief adviser on statistics and should provide professional leadership to all in the Government's statistical service.
	New clause 1 would give the National Statistician direct access to the Prime Minister. If the reform is to succeed, the National Statistician's writ must run throughout the Government's statistical services, not just in the Office for National Statistics. In a decentralised system, we need a strong figure to promote good practice and ensure that Departments do not slip below the appropriate ethical and professional standards in the production and release of statistics.
	Ensuring that the National Statistician has the ear of the Prime Minister and access to the Prime Minister, and ensuring that Departments know that she has the personal backing of the Prime Minister, is key to giving her authority to maintain high standards of integrity and impartiality in relation to departmental statistics, and to help her eliminate the mistreatment and manipulation of statistics, which the Bill is designed to stop.
	The National Statistician's leadership role is crucial. Departmental statisticians should account to her, as well as to their direct bosses. They should look to her for a lead on technical matters, but more importantly, they need to be able to look to the National Statistician for support in maintaining the highest standards of statistical quality and integrity. When they are under pressure from their line managers in Departments to compromise on those standards, they should be able to refer to the National Statistician for guidance and backing.
	It is critical that the power and the status of the National Statistician should act as a counter to the political pressure on departmental statisticians which might be exerted by Ministers and policy officials. That is one of a number of reasons why the Opposition amendments in this group could do so much to strengthen the reform and make it work to protect Government statisticians from political interference.

Alun Michael: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. My point is not that everything needs to be done at the most local level, but that if information is not collected and available in order to be aggregated upwards, we will not have the instruments to interpret what is happening, whether at a regional or higher level. I agree that the information must then be used at the appropriate level. My basic point is that if the information is available right down at the grass-roots level, where some of the real problems of society are to be discovered, we can aggregate upwards in a way that suits any service. In relation to issues of disability and special educational needs, he is right that a more strategic level is appropriate.
	At all levels, the ability to cross-reference and use statistics to describe and understand the complexity of modern society is invaluable. For example, identifying and helping vulnerable children is much aided if people working locally can bring together health, education, crime and social care data to create a fuller picture. That does not provide a complete answer, but it is a powerful diagnostic tool. That implies a need to collect information at the most local level.
	The National Statistician and the statistics board actively need to foster the best and widest use of public investment in statistics for public benefit purposes. That is why I am delighted that Government amendmentNo. 48 makes that clear. They need to tackle any unnecessary blockages to that end, commensurate with genuine data protection and confidentiality requirements. For example, they should work to remove unnecessary barriers to data access and sharing; they should ensure that the definition of "approved researcher" includes those working in local authorities and other local service providers, as well as those undertaking policy work and practical interventions for organisations in the third sector; and they should ensure that there is a robust, simple and non-bureaucratic system to provide ease of access for approved researchers.
	My particular concern is to ensure that statistics are fit for purpose in terms of their effective use at local and sub-regional level, as well as at national and regional level. Statistics are not an end in themselves, but the means to an end, such as crime reduction, improved quality of life or better service delivery. I hope that that will be translated into action by the National Statistician and the board, so that there is a proportionate but effective focus on ensuring that relevant national and official statistics provide evidence of, for instance, local variations and different service needs. That would be greatly welcomed by all those concerned with local policy developments and service delivery, and it will reflect well on the Government and Parliament. It is in that context that I appreciate the thought that my hon. Friend the Minister has given to the matter and the way in which he has tabled amendment No. 48.
	It is always best to keep the wording of any Bill as simple as possible, which is why I did not press some of the amendments that I moved in Committee to a vote. Underlining something by making the wording too emphatic can, by implication, make other things seem less important, or even exclude them by implication. So I did not press some of the amendments, especially given the Minister's welcome assurances in Committee that the measures set out in the Bill embrace the need for statistics to aid local and, indeed, very local policy making. He has carried his words in Committee into action by tabling amendment No. 48. I both welcome it and commend it to the House.

Vincent Cable: I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) that there are many good aspects to the Bill. We all welcome the move towards strengthening the independence of Government statistics. I also agree that there are some things to which the Government have listened. Amendment No. 48 may reflect that. I think that it subsumes what the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) was trying to achieve, and that is progress.
	There has however been no movement on the main issues of substance, and I entirely agree with the arguments developed by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers). There are serious deficiencies in the Bill, and some of them lie in the area covered by this group of amendments. They stem from the basic strategic judgment that the Statistics Commission and the Office for National Statistics can be combined. The Government make a good case for that on one level. There is something to be said for combining two quangos in one on cost and efficiency grounds, providing that it is clear that the roles are properly demarcated—the Chinese walls are clearly defined—and that the different jobs are clearly specified.
	One of the problems from the outset has been that it is not clear that those distinctions are being properly made. The hon. Lady quoted the Treasury Committee on the need for the role of the National Statistician to be spelled out with more detail and clarity than is the case. That still remains an issue. More worryingly, the Bank of England expressed the view at an early stage in the consultative process that the role of the National Statistician was unclear under the Government's proposals. That still remains the case.

Vincent Cable: Yes, that is right. The National Statistician is an enormously important job and the Bill should reflect that explicitly.
	We are particularly concerned to take on board the constructive criticisms of the Royal Statistical Society and the Statistics Commission, which argued that there must be a "demonstrable separation of powers" between the National Statistician and the non-executive members of the board. There is no fundamental reason why they should not work together as part of the same structure, provided that that separation of powers is made absolutely clear.
	Our amendments are designed to complement the arrangement favoured by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, and I do not think that they conflict with it. They have specific aims, the first of which is to define the roles of the National Statistician and the board. Amendment No. 42 states that the National Statistician is to be
	"employed to operate independently of the Board with scrutiny and oversight of the role provided by the Board."
	That makes it clear that delivery and scrutiny are separate functions, even within the board itself. Amendment No. 43 states that the National Statistician must be accountable to the board, whose role will be to monitor and assess his or her performance.
	Amendments Nos. 39 and 45 are designed to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy), in defining more fully, and stressing the importance of, the National Statistician's role. They make clear that the National Statistician is the Government's principal adviser on statistics, and that he or she is there to give professional leadership to Government statisticians as a whole. They also make it clear that the National Statistician's role is to co-ordinate statistics across Government, and to promote them consistently across the United Kingdom. I do not think that any of those definitions conflicts with the way in which the Government see the National Statistician's role; they merely make it explicit.
	Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are, perhaps, particularly crucial. They concern the placing of the word "not", which is rather important. Clause 29(4) currently states
	"The Board may direct the National Statistician... not to exercise a particular function, or... as to how he"
	—although in this case it should be "she"—
	"should exercise a particular function."
	That cuts across what should be the Bill's aim, which is to separate the functions of the National Statistician and the non-executive members of the board.

Michael Fallon: I shall shortly speak to amendment No. 1, which stands in my name, and Government amendment No. 48, which has, I think, been tabled in response to it. However, I shall begin by addressing new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers).
	I support the new clause, and I will be surprised if the Minister does not agree to it. It is extremely important that there be the right of direct access to the Prime Minister. Lord Moser, who served four Prime Ministers, was emphatic in his evidence to the Select Committee that that is an essential weapon in the armoury of any National Statistician who is involved in any dispute with either the senior statistician or, indeed, Ministers in other Departments.
	Because the Government have not accepted a broader supervisory function for the National Statistician, the right of direct access is all the more important. Not only does it reinforce the leadership role that my hon. Friend has sketched in new clause 3(3), but if the Government are not going to concede a supervisory function, there should certainly be that safeguard for the National Statistician. When it is necessary—which will be very rarely, as Lord Moser made clear—it is essential that that right exist.
	It is also important to have that right of direct access to the Prime Minister because it is direct. It is not to be exercised through the Cabinet Secretary. That is important, because the department will be retained within the aegis of the Treasury. It will not be transferred to the Cabinet Office. It will not be brought any closer to the Prime Minister. For that reason, the right of direct access is particularly important.
	The National Statistician might get into a serious dispute—for example, with the Chancellor himself. The Treasury is the Department that will fund the new board and appoint its members, but there could be a dispute about a matter. Let us speculate about what could be the subject of such a dispute: the definition of private finance initiative liabilities, for example, or the cost of public sector pensions, or the net investment rule. As there could be a dispute, the National Statistician must have the right of direct access to the Prime Minister.
	I also support new clause 3, which sets out the proper role for the National Statistician and the board. It is extraordinary that that is not done in the Bill itself. We found that out in Committee. We had to supply amendment after amendment in order to insert into the Bill that key leadership role. Perhaps to make her amendment more compliant and to give it a chance of success, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has not included the key word "supervisory" in it, but that is the matter that we are talking about. In the end, the National Statistician must be able to exercise some leadership role across the Departments—across the statistical divisions of those Departments. That is why new clause 3 is so important.
	I note that my hon. Friend's drafting covers all statistics and not simply official statistics. I support that; it is important. She specifies a clear duty of co-ordination across the different Departments of State and also the promotion of consistency between the territories,which we might hear a little more about later in our debate.
	The National Statistician must be not only head of profession, but the champion of statistics—and also of the public good, which I will address. That means that she must have an interest in the way in which statistical functions are carried out not only in her own office but in the statistical divisions of each of the Government Departments. She must be interested in whether they have the necessary funding, for example, or whether they are devoting the resources that are required, or whether the right priorities are being set inside those Departments to deliver the statistics that are needed. I support new clause 3.

Michael Fallon: I certainly prefer the term "statistics" to "official statistics" because, as we debated endlessly in Committee, it covers a wider range of data. It had not occurred to me that new clause 3(1)(c) as drafted might refer to the production by companies of private or commercial statistics. However, it makes pretty clear exactly what is required—that statistics, if they are to be produced by the different territories, must be as consistent as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is right to want to give that duty to the National Statistician.
	I turn, if I may, to my amendment No. 1 and Government amendment No. 48. Let me say straight away to the Minister that he has kept his word. In Committee, we introduced the concept of "public good", and he has offered up a definition of it and acted to put it on the statute for the first time. I thank him for that. It is important, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) said, to get that wider objective on the statute. Any criticisms that I now make of the Minister's drafting should not detract from the general welcome that I give to getting those words in.
	In amendment No. 48, the Minister refers to
	"the production and publication of official statistics that serve the public good."
	That is all very well, but on looking at that phrase more carefully, we note that he is referring to
	"statistics that serve the public good",
	rather than to statistics whose purpose is to serve the public good. That is not simply a nit-picking point. It implies, of course, that some official statistics will not be serving the public good—that another set of statistics is not involved with the public good. That is a little unfortunate, and perhaps the drafting can be improved in that regard.

Michael Fallon: No, I am not going to give way again.
	I support new clauses 1 and 3 and I welcome, with the criticisms that I have made of it, amendmentNo. 48. Even at this late hour, the Minister should have another look at the simpler and more forthright version that I have set out in amendment No. 1.

David Gauke: I wish to make two brief observations on this group of amendments. The first relates to the comments made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about amendments Nos. 46 and 47. Similar amendments were discussed in Committee and I shall repeat an observation that I made then, because it still holds true. Both those amendments are very helpful, but flawed.
	They are helpful because they expose one of the difficulties in the Bill. Essentially, the Bill provides details of the role of the statistics board, but does not especially say what the role of the National Statistician will be. Clause 29(2) states that the National Statistician may exercise certain functions of the board. However, clause 29(4) allows the board to reserve powers for itself instead of allowing the National Statistician to assume all the powers of the board, which I think would be the result of amendments Nos. 46 and 47. That would not be desirable, but the amendments are helpful because they identify the flaw in the Bill, which is that we do not know what the role of the National Statistician will be. We will have a board, and that will do certain things, and some of its powers will be delegated to the National Statistician, but the Bill does not give much guidance on that point. New clause 3 is also helpful as it attempts to define the role and objectives of the National Statistician.
	My second observation relates to the fact that since the Committee stage the Treasury Committee has visited the Republic of Ireland. Those of us who went, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), met the Irish statisticians, who made several observations to which I am sure we will return during the course of the afternoon. The Irish statisticians identified an example of some of the pressures on them. The question arose as to whether cigarettes should be included in determining inflation and the equivalent of the retail prices index. Health campaigners argued that cigarettes should be excluded on health grounds. The view of the statisticians—rightly, in my opinion—was to resist that argument, because the point of statistics, as we have discussed this afternoon, is to provide a true figure. Such questions of morality should not be part of the decision about what is included in a particular statistic. The Irish statisticians were able to resist that pressure. In looking at the Bill, it is a worthwhile test to assess that everything has been done to ensure that the statisticians are in a position to resist that type of extraneous non-statistical pressure to influence statistics.
	New clause 1, which deals with access to the Prime Minister, also relates to the status of the National Statistician—an issue referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. It is important that the National Statistician should be a respected major figure in public life.
	New clause 3 relates to the role and objectives of the National Statistician. The fact that those are made clear and are now an integral part of the Bill will help the National Statistician to retain the necessary integrity and strength to resist any pressures. AmendmentNo. 48, which relates to the role of the board, also assists in that process. Once again, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks that that specification is helpful and welcome. The public good test is definitely worth applying to the Bill as a whole. As I say, both new clauses 1 and 3 would be beneficial to the Bill in achieving that objective.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman, better than anyone in the House at present, will understand the nature of the framework for national statistics, which we introduced in 2000. He will recognise—becausewe are legislating now—that that is not a statutory framework. Nevertheless, the access that the National Statistician has through the head of the civil service is set out under the terms of that framework. That is the simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
	New clause 3 apparently seeks to clarify the roles, responsibilities and objectives of the National Statistician as compared with the board. Although I understand some of the thinking behind it, in my view the proposal is unnecessary. I hope that I will be able to demonstrate to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and others that it is likely to subvert, not strengthen, the governance model and to blur, not clarify, the lines of accountability.
	I want to say clearly to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) that the National Statistician's role under the Bill and the new system is not being downgraded. I hope to go on to explain that it is also not unclear. First, let me deal with the question of the National Statistician's role and status. It is hard to argue that, taken as a whole, the Bill and the proposals for the new system downgrade the role, as opposed to strengthening it. For the first time, it will be a statutory post. The National Statistician will be the chief executive of what is presently the Office for National Statistics. She will continue to be the chief statistical adviser to the Government and to the board on all professional and statistical matters. She will be head of the Government statistical service. She will be a full member of the board, sharing responsibility with the other board members for the ultimate decision making, rather than, as now, advising me as the Minister ultimately responsible to Parliament. Finally, the post will be a higher status Crown appointment, rather than, as now, a post that is appointed simply by Ministers. I hope that that will settle once and for all the suggestion that the hon. Lady has recycled from others and that was often made at an earlier stage in our consultation.
	On the question of clarity, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) is right: there is no intrinsic reason why the National Statistician cannot operate in the same organisation as a scrutiny or assessment function if we get the arrangements right. I hope that if I say a little more about how the board and the National Statistician's duties will operate in practice it may allay some of the concerns that have prompted the remarks this afternoon and the amendments and new clauses. Once the board is established, I fully expect the chair of the board and the National Statistician to set out in more detail some of these points in published documents that outline their ways of working and their respective overall goals and objectives. These are not matters for statute or matters to pin down precisely at this point. The matters for statute relate to establishing legal responsibilities and clear lines of public accountability.
	In its role and capacity as the top layer of governance for the statistics office, we expect that the board will primarily provide strategic oversight and set the direction. As I have said, it replaces the role that I currently undertake in relation to the Office for National Statistics. I am clearly not involved in the day-to-day operations. The majority non-executive board will similarly provide support for, and exercise a challenge function in relation to, the National Statistician and her executive team. That is a well established and usual role for non-executive members of boards.
	I would expect the board, as I do now, to contribute to, comment on and sign off several of the long-term strategic documents and plans, such as high-level business plans for statistical production. I would also expect it to play a central role in making decisions about managing high-level risks. Examples of that might be plans for the census, plans for improving the statistics that are available to track migration and population in this country, or even several of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), such as questions of relocation and where the headquarters of the ONS should be located in future. We expect the board to sign off the code of practice and assessments. However, the work done to prepare the code and undertake the assessments would be carried out not by the board, but under the guidance of the National Statistician and the head of assessment respectively.
	The chair of the board will clearly be a significant figure under the new system. I would thus expect that person to provide strategic leadership and a clear vision for the board. I would expect the chair to help to ensure that the board collectively holds the National Statistician and his or her staff and the head of assessment to account for delivery. I would also expect the chair to act as a public spokesperson and ambassador for the board with the Government and the wider statistics community and in the public area. Finally, and importantly, I would expect the chair of the board to be called before any parliamentary Committees to report on, and account for, the activities of the board.
	I have outlined the five roles that we see for the National Statistician—or the five ways in which the position is being reinforced. The National Statistician will have a number of key complementary roles. Let me give a little more detail to put some meat on the bones of what I have said before. As the board's chief professional adviser, we would expect the National Statistician to advise the board on statistical and professional issues, including the content of the code of practice. We would expect the National Statistician to support the board in the discharge of its scrutiny functions by advising on technical matters, such as the use of classifications, definitions and methodologies. Of course, as I have said, although the board might take a decision not to follow the professional or technical advice of the National Statistician, it will be required to report on that publicly, including to the House.
	I would expect the National Statistician, as the board's chief executive, to establish a management team and staff the executive office to undertake statistical production and many of the current activities of the ONS. I would also expect that person to provide leadership to that office, which might well be established as an executive agency of the board as the ONS is an executive agency of the Treasury. The National Statistician might thus provide managerial and operational leadership, including on such matters as pay and rations. Finally, as the head of the government statistical service, I would expect the National Statistician to be leading the professional development of staff across government and taking responsibility for the recruitment and development of a sufficient supply of good quality professionals to staff our government statistical service.

Adam Afriyie: In business and every other walk of life, the ultimate power that any individual—or perhaps Government Minister—has over any organisation is the ability to appoint and dismiss members of a board or an organisation. Who will have the ultimate power to appoint people to the board?

John Healey: As I said earlier, the appointment ofthe chair of the board will be made ultimately by the Crown, on the advice of the Prime Minister. All appointments will be subject to the established procedure of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
	In her role as the head of the government statistical service, the National Statistician would have responsibility for guiding the heads of profession in the Departments on the full range of professional matters. The Bill establishes a clear, single accountability structure, under which the board and all who work for it will strive to achieve the same high-level objective of ensuring the availability of good quality statistics that serve the public good. Accountability will be provided by the board. New clause 1 and the amendments are more likely to muddy the lines, and to put that confusion into statute, than to help.

John Healey: The chair will be appointed in the way that I explained, but members of the board will be appointed through the established OCPA process. They will be appointed formally by the Treasury, because under the Bill the Treasury has residual functions that are required of the Government, relating to the independent statistical system and the independent statistics board.
	Turning to amendments Nos. 8, 10 to 14, 46 and 47, we expect the National Statistician to undertake executive functions, including statistical production, through the executive office that the National Statistician is required to establish. Under clause 29(2), the National Statistician can exercise all the board's functions, with some limited exceptions, so as to ensure a clear separation from the board's assessment function.
	There is another protective lock on the professional primacy of the National Statistician's role. The National Statistician will advise the board on all statistical matters. If the board overrules the National Statistician's advice on technical issues, it will be required to publish the reasons why and report them to Parliament. That isthe importance of the National Statistician's role as the board's chief professional adviser.
	Ultimately, the National Statistician and the executive office exercise the functions of the board under the board's direction. The board will be the legal entity statutorily responsible for the exercising of the functions established in the Bill. That provides the Government with a structure that allows corporate oversight of executive and assessment functions, while allowing us to maintain a single centre of expertise for statistics. As I said, the board replaces the role that Ministers currently play in overseeing and supporting the National Statistician, and it is therefore the board, not Ministers, who will be held to account for delivering the statutory functions of the Bill.
	If the board is given statutory responsibility, and is accountable for delivering those functions, it must ultimately have responsibility for them, even though in most cases the board will have the functions discharged by the National Statistician and her executive office. I repeat that I believe that we have introduced the right system, overseen by the board. Ultimately, accountability will be shared by a group; it will not rest with one individual, albeit an individual as distinguished and well qualified as the National Statistician.
	I shall deal briefly with amendments Nos. 39 and 45. Amendment No. 39 would require the National Statistician to promote statistical planning and production across Departments. As we discussed in Committee, one of the Bill's great strengths is the fact that the devolved Administrations have all decided to join in with the new arrangements. The Government recognise that consistent, UK-wide statistics are important, beneficial and desirable. The consistency will mean that statistics about the devolved countries can be combined to produceUK figures; it will mean that if there were different Administrations, we could compare their circumstances. As I made clear in Committee, some divergence is to be expected. That is a product of devolution—not just the recent devolution settlement but the different legal, political and administrative systems and policies that are in place in the four nations, many of which existed before devolution. It may therefore not be appropriate or desirable for statistics to be as consistent as possible.
	Amendment No. 45 would require the legislation to state that the National Statistician should be the Government's chief adviser on statistics and "provide professional leadership" to all persons working on statistics in government. I have dealt with the status of the National Statistician and their important range of roles. I have already said that we intend the National Statistician, as now, to be the head of the government statistical service, providing professional leadership to people working on statistics in government. In the decentralised system that we have chosen to retain, it is inevitable that statisticians will continue to work in Government Departments. It is not appropriate to legislate within the civil service structure for lines of accountability between staff working in a Department and the National Statistician working in another Department. We do not do that with the government economic service, government scientific services or the government legal service. The question is not about professional status or authority but simply whether it is right or appropriate to legislate for lines of professional accountability across Departments.

John Healey: There is a strong professional connection and a line of accountability on professional matters. The amendment poses the question of whether it is appropriate to legislate for those circumstances, and my argument is that it is not.
	Finally, amendment No. 15 seeks to make the National Statistician chief executive of the executive office, rather than the chief executive of the board. I do not accept that that is necessary or helpful, as I made clear in Committee. The board, as a corporate body, needs a chief executive, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will accept. The chief executive need not be operationally involved in every aspect of the board's activities to discharge that responsibility, and the Bill ensures that she is not. There are detailed provisions in the Bill on the role of the National Statistician specifying, for example, where her advice must be followed by the board, and activities in which she cannot be involved. She cannot, for example, approve the final form of a code or take part in the assessment of statistics produced by her office. Those provisions give the clearest possible guidance to the National Statistician and the board on their respective roles.
	In Committee, I made the point—and it has been made again today—that it is relatively common for Parliament to authorise a body to undertake a dual role. A local authority, for instance, is empowered both to promote development within its boundary and to grant planning permission. When it does so, it must structure itself to perform both functions as best it can, bearing in mind its overriding responsibility to act fairly, impartially and without bias. The fact that the chief executive may have to distance themselves from the conduct of a planning application does not disqualify them from being responsible as chief executive of the planning department for ensuring effective governance and operations. There are similar examples in central Government. The Department for Transport, for instance, may wish to develop transport networks, and it may be required, too, to consider orders that permit developments under the Transport and Works Act 1992. Similarly, the fact that the National Statistician is expressly distanced from decisions relating to the board's own statistics assessment does not bar her from ultimate responsibility as chief executive to the board. In many cases, public policy and individual decisions can present a certain amount of tension, but there is no reason why they cannot be accommodated in a single organisation, or why they should be less transparent because of that fact, especially where proper separations are established, as is the case in the Bill.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and others who tabled amendments and new clauses will reflect on the response that I have given to their concerns and will not press the amendments. Ihope that they will support Government amendment No. 48.

Theresa Villiers: I do not propose to press the new clauses and amendments in this group to a Division. We had a chance to divide on them in Committee and we have a fair idea what the decision of the House is likely to be. However, we remain concerned. I am grateful to the Minister for his lengthy response to our arguments. It is helpful to have a clearer picture of the various roles. His statement this afternoon will be useful to those in the statistical community who are worried about that, but he has not answered all our concerns.
	The Minister dismissed the proposed separation of executive and scrutiny functions on the grounds that that would necessitate the creation of two competing centres of statistical expertise. The amendmentsseek a compromise which would not require that. Even if the functions were separated and there were two boards, the practical difficulties would not be insurmountable.
	The Minister also said that he was confident that the board would be able to make impartial decisions on the activities of the ONS, regardless of whether the board was ultimately responsible for those decisions. In many respects I share the Minister's confidence. I believe that the board will be able to do a good job, but we are talking about restoring trust. If the board is the entity responsible for making the decision that it reviews, that may undermine the credibility of its decision-making process.
	It is the perception rather than the actuality that will be a problem. That is highlighted by the point that the Minister made very clearly—that the board is the legal entity that is responsible even for all the delegated functions, including production. So the awkward situation arises where, for example, if someone wanted to make a complaint about the ONS, various options would be open to them. One might be to make a complaint to the board. They might also consider judicial review. Which body would be the subject of review in the courts? The board itself would be the relevant legal entity. The board could find itself adjudicating on a complaint which was ultimately directed at itself in the High Court. There are continuing tensions, despite the attempt to separate internally the functions of scrutiny and production of statistics.
	Finally, I reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy). The Minister said that it was recycled, but the fact that a point has been made before does not mean that it is not valid. As the Minister confirmed, the National Statistician has access to the Prime Minister. She has a remit to co-ordinate and she is the Government's chief adviser on statistics. She performs those functions at present. The Bill is designed to put the statistical services and their structure on a statutory footing, yet the key functions that the National Statistician currently performs are left out. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne makes a good point, in that the omission of those important functions is effectively a downgrading of the status of the National Statistician. I am sorry that the Minister does not support our amendments and new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in clause 10, page 5, line 11, leave out 'National' and insert 'Official'.
	No. 17, page 5, line 19, at end insert—
	'(4) In drafting the Code and supervising compliance thereto, the Board shall have regard to the duties set out in section 26 of this Act.'.
	No. 44, page 5, line 19, at end insert—
	'(4) All those who produce National Statistics must conform to the Code of Practice unless the Board accepts and publishes any case for deviation, consulting the Board on matters of interpretation as necessary, and reporting any breach of the Code to the Board.'.
	No. 18, in clause 12, page 6, line 15, leave out
	'At the request of the appropriate authority'.
	No. 19, page 6, line 16, leave out 'National' and insert 'Official'.
	No. 20, page 6, line 17, leave out 'in relation to any' and insert
	'by the authorities responsible for producing'.
	No. 21, page 6, leave out lines 19 to 22.
	No. 22, page 6, leave out lines 29 to 44.
	No. 34, page 6, line 44, at end insert—
	'(9) The Board shall have the authority to initiate an assessment process to designate any set of official statistics as National Statistics with the provision that the board must inform the appropriate authority before initiating the process.'.

Theresa Villiers: New clause 4 and amendments Nos. 16 to 22 would extend the full rigour of the reforms to all official statistics. We agree with the Royal Statistical Society, which stated in a letter to the Chancellor last year:
	"The new arrangements should cover all official statistics not just those which are currently the responsibility of ONS or labelled National Statistics.
	If statistics produced by the major policy departments on topics such as crime, education, health and social security are omitted, then this will erode public confidence, rather than enhance it."
	Our amendments would abolish the confusing two-tier system between national and other official statistics. They would give the board the authority to regulate the statistical activities of all Government Departments by applying the code of practice across all Departments. They would address one of the most significant weaknesses in the Government's proposals. It is startling that the Bill does not oblige anyone to comply with the code of practice, despite the Government's promise to put the code on a statutory footing. New clause 4 would remedy that by imposing a legal obligation on Departments to obey the code of practice. I am pleased to see that the Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 44 would go in the same direction.
	As the Minister stated in Committee, the Bill as drafted does not give the board a supervisory or regulatory role at all, but gives it a function that is "much softer in nature"—one of assessment and audit, not supervision. As drafted, all the Bill does is require the board to produce a code and to empower it to carry out assessments of particular statistics against the terms of that code. As Professor Tim Holt has pointed out, the Bill leaves it to Ministers to decide whether the code of practice is to apply to them, because clause 12 leaves it in their hands to nominate statistics for assessment by the board as national statistics. It is up to them as to whether the board can carry out even the limited assessment function permitted it by the Bill. That specific point—the starting of the assessment process—is addressed by the Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 34, which would enable the board to initiate an assessment. That would provide a welcome limit on ministerial power in this area and would be an improvement on the Bill, but it does not go far enough.
	Only the imposition of a legal obligation on Departments to obey the code would give the board the authority to ensure that good practice is observed right across Government. At present, clause 7 gives the board the objective of promoting and safeguarding good practice, but not the authority with which to do that effectively. In Committee, the Minister stated repeatedly that he expected the board to promote the code as a model of good practice, but only if the amendments were accepted would the board have the supervisory and regulatory tools to ensure that the code is actually applied and obeyed across Government. As drafted, the Bill leaves the board only with the power of exhortation—the power to name and shame Departments that transgress. In the Treasury Committee, Dr. Fellegi pointed out that that is little different from the current powers of the Statistics Commission and status of the existing code of practice.
	The Government have admitted that the current structures are inadequate to restore trust in official statistics. Leaving Ministers to determine which of their Department's statistical activities are subjected to the code and to the scrutiny of the board will leave the coverage of the reforms patchy and inconsistent. The British Society for Population Studies has describedthe national statistics system as having been
	"applied in a piecemeal way to individual datasets".
	If it is left to Ministers to decide which statistics are brought into the national statistics system and subjected to the code of practice, many important indicators could be left out of the scope of the reforms. I am informed by the Library that in the seven years since the 2000 reforms, there has been a net addition of only25 new national statistics. Distinguished statisticians such as Lord Moser have described that aspect of the Government's proposals as a significant flaw.
	If this reform is to succeed, it must, as the Statistics Commission has stated and the Minister has acknowledged, address the whole Government statistical system. There is no good reason why any lesser regime should apply to Departments than to the ONS. That makes no logical sense when it is acknowledged that the more significant problems have occurred outside the work of the ONS. As the British Urban and Regional Information Systems Association has pointed out, the social statistics produced by Departments on crime, education and health are part of the very currency of political debate in this country. If the reform subjects those to a lesser degree of rigour and scrutiny than other official statistics, it will fail in the goal set by the Government. As the Statistics Commission has sagely pointed out, that will risk public confidence in such statistics being undermined rather than strengthened by the Bill.
	We are not talking about trifling, insignificant exclusions: a number of important and politically sensitive figures are currently outside the scope of national statistics. I do not propose to trouble the House with the long list that I read out in Committee, but I shall pick 12 or so examples. Excluded statistics that would not be covered by the code of practice under the Bill as drafted include: figures on the end-of-month prison population count; quarterly figures for cancelled operations and time spent in accident and emergency; annual figures on NHS bed availability; business survival rates for firms still registered for VAT after three years; annual progress reports on the UK fuel poverty strategy; and armed forces medical discharges. Many important statistics from the devolved areas fall outside the national statistics framework: in Scotland, alcohol-related, health and mortality statistics on various topics and cancer audits and waiting times; in Wales, figures on detentions under the Mental Health Act 1983, and data on cervical screening and exclusions from schools. Those are significant figures that deserve impartial treatment.
	In Committee, the Financial Secretary based his counter-arguments in that regard on a claim that some statistics were more important than others. In essence, he asserted that not all statistics were important enough to be subject to the code of conduct. That argument has several flaws. First, if it is worth collecting and relying on a statistic, surely it is worth doing it according to standards of impartiality, objectivity and accuracy, as set out in the code of practice.
	Secondly, it is difficult to know in advance which statistics will be significant, and which will not. For example, on Second Reading, the Financial Secretary referred to the egg bulletin as not significant enough to warrant application of the code of practice. As various salmonella scares have shown, however, statistics relating to the safety of food, including eggs, can be of critical importance.
	Thirdly, the decision as to which statistics are significant enough to merit the application of the code of practice is simply too important to be left to Ministers. In Committee, the Financial Secretary rightly placed great emphasis on the boundary between important statistics and those that he dismissed as insufficiently significant to merit compliance with the code. He said that that
	"cuts to the heart of the proposals in the Bill and the concerns that some have expressed." ——[Official Report, Statistics and Registration Service Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2007;c. 207.]
	He is right: it does. Under the Bill as drafted, the boundary between national and other official statistics marks the boundary of the scope of the reforms. The Financial Secretary wishes that boundary to be determined by Ministers, so that they can say, in effect, to the board, "thus far and no further".
	The Financial Secretary said in Committee that he hoped and expected that the system put in place by the Bill would evolve. Given the approach that he takes, we know who will decide the nature and pace of that evolution: the very Ministers whose intervention this whole reform is designed to reduce. That aspect of the Bill significantly undermines the good intentions of the reform and retains significant ministerial power over official statistics. In Committee, the Financial Secretary said that he felt there would be a
	"stronger incentive...for Ministers to look actively at submitting additional departmental statistics for approval as national statistics where they are central to the policy functions or delivery of programmes for which those Ministers are responsible." ——[Official Report, Statistics and Registration Service Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2007; c. 33.]
	If he really believes that, he lives in a happier and less cynical universe than the rest of us. As Dr. Fellegi pointed out to the Treasury Committee, the possibility of enhanced and exacting scrutiny can hardly be much of an incentive to opt into any system. Anyway, if Ministers were so keen to take on that kind of scrutiny, why are the Government so resistant to calls for the expansion of the scope of the code of practice to cover all statistics?
	The second assertion that the Minister advanced in Committee was that the Opposition's approach was
	"a certain recipe for rendering the board ineffective." ——[Official Report, Statistics and Registration Service Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2007; c. 205.]
	That is predicated on a misunderstanding of how the new clause and amendments would work in practice. They would not require the board to carry out an individual assessment process in relation to each and every number produced by a Department. Instead, they would give the board the power to monitor and supervise the activities of Departments when they produce and disseminate statistics. We want the code to apply to people, not numbers. The new clause and amendments would transform the code from a box-ticking exercise to be carried out in relation to a particular set of statistics into a code of behaviour to guide the people who produce statistics—the statisticians and officials who produce and handle statistics at the ONS and in Departments.
	Assessments can be part of that supervisory process, but there is nothing in the amendments that would place an obligation to carry out an assessment on any one particular statistic unless the board considers it to be proportionate and sensible so to do. After all, the Financial Services Authority has a 10,000 page, 6 ft wide rule book that it applies to the entities that it regulates, but it does not oblige the authority to check every transaction to regulate compliance effectively.
	The Minister's third assertion was that imposing the code on all Government statistical activities would lead to a disproportionate burden, but why can we not trust the board to produce a code that does not impose disproportionate burdens? It has an explicit duty to minimise compliance cost under clause 26. To make that duty even plainer in this context, amendmentNo. 17 would require the board to have specific regard to that duty in drafting the code and supervising compliance with it. The underlying thrust of the reforms is that we can trust the board to take crucial decisions relating to the production and release of statistics. In that case, why is the Minister so reluctant to trust it to take a common-sense, proportionate approach to drafting the code and to its impact on statistics of differing degrees of importance.
	In Committee, the Minister described the approach taken in this group of amendments as "extraordinary and absurd". Although he may disagree with the principle, he is wrong to dismiss as absurd and impractical a position that has the support of such a long list of experts in statistics. As well as Lord Moser, the RSS, the Treasury Committee, the Statistics Commission and others to whom I have referred, virtually all those who expressed a view during the consultation wanted the scope of the Bill widened significantly. That includes organisations such as the Audit Commission, the Market Research Society, Professor Denise Lievesley of the Health and Social Care Information Centre, the First Division Association, the British Urban and Regional Information Systems Association and the Greater London authority data management group. Even the Government's own chief social researcher, Sue Duncan, has expressed a degree of sympathy on this point.
	The House should have some sympathy for the Financial Secretary. He is in a difficult position. His hands are clearly tied by his colleagues who want to limit the scrutiny that the board can exert over its departmental activities. His hands are tied by Ministers who are determined to keep the board away from certain sensitive statistics. If he is sincere in his wish to give genuine independence to statistical services, I urge him to stand up to his colleagues and take his reform to its logical conclusion; to allow the board to throw light on the statistical activities that Ministers would rather were kept in the shadows; and give the board real teeth to supervise the production and release of all official statistics, not just those that Ministers permit them to assess.

Julia Goldsworthy: I shall speak mainly to amendment No. 34. The heart of the debate is whether there should be a two-tier system of official and national statistics. The Liberal Democrats have a bit more of a relaxed view on that than the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers). Obviously it is important to ensure that the best standards are adhered to; on the other hand, are national standards really necessary for statistics collected from a survey of grey squirrels or the like?
	We accept that there are different levels of statistics. However, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, the devolved statistics are often the most controversial and often involve the greatest problems. The public are often particularly suspicious about the quality and authority of such data. Crime statistics have been especially controversial, as have statistics on health and education. The question is, how can we avoid such controversy?
	Amendment No. 34 is fairly simple. Its aim is to confer some symmetry to the way in which national statistics are considered, and to decisions on whether statistics should be designated as national statistics. In Committee, the Financial Secretary said:
	"I would expect the board, as part of its statutory duty under the Bill, to comment on the comprehensiveness and coverage of official statistics and"
	—more important—
	"to comment also on any official statistics that it believes should be national statistics." ——[Official Report, statistics and registration service Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2007; c. 152.]
	Amendment No. 34 proposes to take that a step forward. It makes the point that if it is possible for Ministers to submit statistics to be designated as national statistics, the board, for the purpose of symmetry, should be empowered to initiate the process. That is fairly straightforward, and I think that it can be justified on the grounds that it is symmetrical and does not allow Ministers the veto power that the Bill currently gives them.
	While I am minded to support the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet if she presses her new clause to a vote, the key issue for us is not whether there should be two tiers of statistics, but that there should be symmetry, and that at the very least Ministers' powers under clause 12 should be matched by the board's powers to initiate the process. That would prevent the perpetuation of the problems of the past, when statistics have been deemed to be lacking in credibility and have not won public support because of apparent ministerial interference.
	I think that our amendment is reasonable. Our intention is to help the Minister, because I suspect that when the Bill goes to the other place, a view similar to that of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will be outlined. I hope that he will consider the amendment in a spirit of compromise.

David Gauke: It has often been asked during the Bill's passage why the code of practice will not apply to all official statistics, and I still do not feel that we have had a satisfactory answer. We should also ask what impact the Bill will have on official statistics that are not national statistics. We received an answer of sorts in Committee from the Financial Secretary. He said that
	"we also expect the code to be one of the board's main vehicles to promulgate the standards and definitions that it is required under clause 9 to produce and promote across all official statistics. I stress the importance of that point, which has perhaps not been clear before".
	He was right to stress that because it had not been clear before. The Financial Secretary went on:
	"It is important to note that, although the code's formal status is as a statement of practice against which national statistics or candidate national statistics will be assessed, we expect the board to promote it as a code of good practice across all official statistics."—[ Official Report, Statistics and Registration Service Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2007; c. 151.]
	That raises a particular difficulty because there is, of course, no sanction. The board is able to threaten nothing against the producers of statistics if they are in breach of the code, because the sole sanction in the Bill is that a statistic will either be assessed as a national statistic or it will not. That is a weakness. There is no sanction against official statistics and the producers of official statistics if they fail to meet the required standard, which is regrettable.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) made an important point about the argument that we cannot have a large number of official statistics being treated as national statistics and the code applying to them, because that would impose too much work on the statistics board. That is a strange position to adopt because we do not usually produce laws or regulations and then simply say, "Well, if too many people could breach it, we won't bother to enforce it." The board should apply the code as it sees fit in those areas where it considers that to be proportionate and appropriate, but everybody should try to comply with it. The other position is rather like saying about speed cameras that one should obey the speed limit only where there is a speed camera, and that as it is not practical to have speed cameras everywhere we will not have speed limits in places where we do not have them. That is a flawed approach, and that is why new clause 4 is eminently sensible and necessary.

Alex Salmond: As I recall, Dr. Goudie gave, in his submission to the Scottish Parliament, a clear indication that one of the difficulties that his team was operating under was that the Treasury had failed to release some of the information that he required in order to examine the accuracy of the particular set of non-identifiable spending statistics. Could it possibly be the case that the Treasury failed to give information to the Scottish Executive statisticians?

John Healey: I think that we are making some progress. The hon. Lady will recognise that clause 8 sets out the board's objective and allows it to monitor the whole sweep of official statistics and to comment in specific or general terms on any concerns that it has. She will remember that I made it clear in Committee—indeed, she quoted from those proceedings—that we expect the code of practice established by the board, particularly for the purpose of assessing and approving national statistics, to be the general standard and to become the wider expectation of the way that other official statistics are handled. However, the crucial issues are the recognition that some statistics are more important than others, that the board devotes the proper and fullest attention to those that are most important, and that we are establishing a flexible framework at the outset that can evolve in the light of experience and of the changing needs of our society and economy regarding statistics.
	We are starting with a list of almost 1,300 statistics already designated as national statistics, which will change over time. Additional statistics can be put to the board for assessment and if it judges them to be up to scratch—if they satisfy the standards that the board sets in its independently drawn up and approved code—they can be independently approved as national statistics.
	In a decentralised system, responsibility for submitting statistics for assessment must ultimately lie with Ministers. We are responsible for making policy and, as such, we are arguably best placed to know which statistics are most critical to the development, delivery and evaluation of the policies for which we are responsible and accountable. We are also accountable, ultimately, for allocating and managing resources within the Department, including resources devoted to statistical production. I see this as essentially and primarily a policy and resource decision. It is more appropriate for Ministers to take such decisions, rather than the board, which is why I do not accept amendment No. 34.

John Healey: The short answer is that we setting up an entirely new system, based in statute, with a powerful independent board to drive the system, so there is a greater potential role for this House—and Parliaments in the devolved nations—in holding Ministers and Departments to account in respect of these matters.
	I shall deal now with new clause 4. Under clause 8, the board has a statutory duty to monitor the production and publication of official statistics and the power to comment on concerns about the quality and good practice in relation to those statistics. I must tell the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, however, that I remain of the view that it is simply not appropriate to impose in a blanket way the full provisions of the code on those working in literally hundreds—certainly above 200—Crown bodies that may produce statistics that fall under the definition of official statistics.
	As I said in Committee, the range of statistical information produced by the Government falls into the definition of official statistics in the Bill. It is extensive, increasing and constantly changing, particularly with more statistics now increasingly derived from management and administrative systems such as the delivery of benefits or education and not just from the traditional statistical methods of surveys and censuses. Those statistics genuinely pose additional challenges as the primary purpose of the system that produces the data is not in itself statistical.
	It would be disingenuous and unrealistic for us to argue that all such statistics would be able to meet at all times and in full the standards set out in the code of practice, including any and all the quality standards that the board may choose to impose. Surely the key is having an active programme of assessment that concentrates on the most important statistics for all users so that we will all know that the board has independently adjudged and assessed those statistics against its standards and that those standards have been met. Surely that is a more effective, more transparent and, ultimately, more accountable and stronger system of ensuring the quality and integrity of statistical outputs.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will not press her amending provisions to the vote. If she does, I must ask my hon. Friends to resist them.

Julia Goldsworthy: I beg to move amendmentNo. 40, in page 14, line 40, at end insert—
	'(1A) Personal information under subsection (1) shall not be used except in relation to the exercise of any of the functions of the Board and the National Statistician.'.

Julia Goldsworthy: Once again, we are trying to be helpful with these amendments. We believe in the principle that individuals and companies must have absolute confidence that any information that they provide when national statistics are collected will not be used in a way that is disadvantageous to them. Consequently, all those who receive and manipulate the data must be governed by the same set of rules.
	The Royal Statistical Society has raised concerns that, as drafted, the Bill fails to provide effective protection to confidential information or to ensure that anyone who discloses or uses such information unlawfully is subject to clear penalties. Moreover, Len Cook, the former National Statistician, has said that there is no consistent protection of individual records at the moment. For example, household survey records are not protected by existing legislation such as the Census Act 1920 or the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. In many areas, the confidentiality of personal information is protected only by custom and practice. The amendments would rectify that.
	Amendment No. 40 makes it explicit that personal information should be used only
	"in relation to the exercise of any of the functions of the Board".
	The amendment therefore specifies how the information must be used, and how it must not. Amendment No. 41 deals with how personal data are disclosed by the National Statistician under clause 36(1). It ties in with other clauses to achieve consistency throughout.
	In principle, we think that there are great advantages to sharing as much data as possible, but people need to be confident that the information will not be abused. The amendments pay attention to the experience in Canada, whose chief statistician gave evidence to the Treasury Committee. He explained that the Canadian Statistics Act gave Statistics Canada unrestricted access to all administrative records held at any level of Government and any organisation. However, he also said:
	"Of course, the other side of that coin is extremely strong confidentiality guarantees, which are spelled out and which allow no exceptions. Not even the intelligence community, not even the police, not even the courts in the course of a prosecution can have access under the Statistics Act."
	The Government amendments propose some reasonable exceptions in relation to court access to information.

Mark Hoban: I rise to speak to amendment No. 24, which picks up the theme raisedby the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) about the need to safeguard the confidentiality of personal data supplied in a variety of forms to the board.
	Clause 36 sets out the parameters for the disclosure of personal information supplied to the board. It does so by creating the general presumption that such information cannot be disclosed, and then by setting out, in subsection (4), the circumstances where it can. The first such exemption, in subsection (4)(a), is where there is a legislative requirement that permits or enables personal information to be provided to others. Our amendment No. 24 would limit the data that could be accessed by other Departments to information that had been made available for statistical purposes. Therefore, data supplied through surveys for statistics put together by the ONS board could be used by others only for the same purposes.
	One of the reasons behind the Bill is to promote the integrity of statistical data. If people believe that information can be shared generally with Government Departments, they may choose not to complete statistical returns. That will undermine the completeness of the data set, and the quality of the statistics produced by the ONS board.
	There are precedents for amendment No. 24. For example, clauses 40 and 41 deal with NHS registration data, which are supplied to the board on the understanding set out in subsection (5) of those two clauses. They state that the data
	"may only be used by the Board for the production of population statistics."
	That gives us a precedent that we can follow in relation to other data.
	The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne said that much personal information is protected only by custom and practice. The ONS code of practice in respect of the confidentiality of statistics includes a commitment that the
	"National Statistician will set standards for protecting confidentiality, including a guarantee that no statistics will be produced that are likely to identify an individual unless specifically agreed with them."
	However, the code of practice contains the following caveat:
	"Where information identifying individuals must be given up by law, it will be released only under the explicit direction and on the personal responsibility of the National Statistician."
	Clause 36(4)(e) refers to a court order, but legislation has led to the disclosure of information in other circumstances. Annexe A to the protocol on data protection and confidentiality contains a list of a dozen fairly wide exemptions to the prohibition on release. For example, on census data, exemptions relate to census records that are more than 100 years old and to prosecutions under the Census Act 1920. There are specific and well-defined exemptions to the prohibition on sharing personal information.
	My concern, however, is that clause 36(4)(a) will open up the scope for wider sharing of confidential personal information to other parts of the Government and goes beyond the exemptions set out in the protocol on data protection and confidentiality. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain whether there is any intention to share data beyond the categories set out in the protocol. It is important that we follow, where we can, the precedents set in clauses 40 and 41, to give people who complete surveys confidence that their data will remain confidential except in limited circumstances, principally related to statistical purposes. If we do not provide that safeguard, there will be erosion of people's trust that the data they supply will remain confidential, which in the long term could undermine the completeness and quality of official statistics.

Rob Marris: Survey data have been mentioned by several Members, including the hon. Gentlemanand the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy). Are not such data covered by clause 36(1)? That provision gives a blanket block on release, subject to some of the other provisions of the clause, so surely an individual's information would be protected.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but this is our once in a generation opportunity to legislate on statistics. In other Bills that permitted data sharing, my proposal would be the sort of provision that gets tucked away at the end and rarely has proper scrutiny in the House. The Bill is valuable because it codifies existing custom and practice on confidentiality, so it is important to take this opportunity to make clear how we expect data to be used.
	I turn now to Government amendments Nos. 60 and 61, which the Financial Secretary will address in some detail. It is rather difficult to make comments about them before hearing his speech, but given the way our debates are structured there is no other choice. I understand that the intention behind the amendments is to continue the current practice whereby the intelligence service has access to information from the ONS. I have some questions for the hon. Gentleman about the continuation of that access and whether we need amendments Nos. 60 and 61.
	Given that clause 36(4)(e) permits the sharing of personal data when there is a court order and that (4)(f) enables the statistician to release data for the purposes of criminal investigation, are those powers not sufficient to enable the sharing of the data required by the intelligence services without the amendments that the Government propose? Secondly, within the constraints of the debate, will the Minister tell us what type of data is currently being accessed by the intelligence services? I realise that the issue is sensitive, but it would be helpful to know what he intends the provisions to cover. Is there any intention to broaden the type of personal information currently shared?
	What protocols cover information passed to the intelligence services, and will they remain after the Bill gains Royal Assent? There must already be a process governing the sharing of data between the ONS and the intelligence services. Can the National Statistician veto the supply of information to the intelligence services? Will they be able to do so when the Bill has been enacted? One gets the impression that they can do so under the existing protocol. It is important that the Minister clarify, where possible, why the amendments are needed.
	The thrust behind amendment No. 24 and the concerns raised about amendments Nos. 60 and 61 are to ensure that we have adequate controls on the confidentiality of data and that any changes made under the Bill do not weaken it, thus leading to survey respondents and others doubting the continuing confidentiality of that information.

John Healey: This group of amendments relates to the confidentiality and data-sharing provisions of the Bill. As I said in Committee, the confidentiality clause works with the data-sharing provisions later in the Bill—at clause 44 and subsequently—to ensure, first, that existing data flows can continue; secondly, that specific exemptions can be granted, subject to strict safeguards; and, thirdly, that there are stronger sanctions for disclosure than at present, so that breaches of confidential information obligations will be punishable by up to two years' imprisonment. The clause balances the need for flexibility in future data sharing and the need to protect the basis on which any personal data might be used by the board.
	Before turning to the amendments tabled by the Opposition, I beg to move amendments Nos. 27,60 and 61—

John Healey: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I meant to say that I wanted to speak to amendments Nos. 27, 60 and 61 before turning to the amendments tabled by Opposition Members.
	Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 permit disclosure of personal data by the board to the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ in the interests of national security. In effect, that replicates the current position, which is understood and accepted to be that where the intelligence services can make a principled case for access to information—in cases where there is no specific statutory bar on disclosure of the information—restrictions on disclosure could be overridden in the public interest. The current position could not continue without our amendments, because the Bill does what it is designed to do; it tightens the provisions for data sharing, allowing the board in the future to consider disclosure only in the specific circumstances set out in the exceptions under clause 36(4).
	If clause 36 remained as currently drafted, the board could face a criminal prosecution if it made a disclosure in the interests of national security. Amendment No. 60 will ensure that the statistics board is not restricted from making a disclosure to the security services in the future, should that be regarded as necessary for the purposes of the national security.
	I recognise that the amendment may raise questions and I apologise to the House for its being tabled on Report, rather than being part of the Bill's consideration in Committee. We have spent a considerable time ensuring that we adopt the right and proportionate approach. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) asked whether paragraphs (e) and (f) of clause 36(4) cover the needs in such circumstances. The intelligence services have pointed out that the criminal investigations exception, for instance, does not permit the sharing of information by the board in circumstances in which there may be a need to identify potential suspects following a tip-off that does not in itself provide sufficient grounds to launch a criminal investigation. Given that there is already an exemption for criminal investigations or proceedings in clause 36(4)(f) and the fact that ONS can at present make disclosures for the purposes of national security if a good enough case is made, it is difficult to argue that national security disclosures should not be permitted.
	Let me make a couple of other points that I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will find helpful. There is a process that means that the ONS currently, and the board in the future, will be in a position to decide not to disclose information. I hope that the points that I will make will help to settle any wider concerns that there may be. First, the amendment will allow, and not compel, disclosure by the board. There would be a discretionary gateway under which the board would be free to disclose information, if it was satisfied the disclosure fell within the terms of the Bill. Secondly, in practice, as would happen now if ONS were to receive such a request, the intelligence services would have to make the case for disclosure and the board would have to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. Thirdly, it would be for the board to decide whether a particular disclosure was permissible under the Bill. I can therefore assure the House that the provision would not give the intelligence services the ability to go on a general fishing trip. The onus would be on the intelligence services to demonstrate their case. We expect that, in practice, they would need to submit a business case to the board to support each disclosure request, just as they, and criminal investigators orpolices authorities, would do now if they wanted such information.
	Furthermore, I can assure the House that the amendment is considered compatible with the Human RightsAct 1998. Although it may engage article 8—the right to privacy article—of the European convention on human rights, because it provides the discretion to disclose information to the intelligence services, any interference can be considered justified under paragraph 2 of that article. Any disclosure that occurred could be justified as being in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim. May I turn to amendment No. 27?

John Healey: I am glad that my hon. Friend is in his place. This is what I call the Marris amendment. It responds to a point that my hon. Friend made in Committee. He suggested, to some dismay in the parliamentary counsel offices, that clause 36 was "infelicitously worded" and that we could helpfully consider clarifying subsection (5). I am pleased to offer the amendment as a way of tidying up what he spotted in the Bill. His concern may not be immediately clear to the rest of the House, so I should explain that the subsection as it stands states, that an
	"'approved researcher' means an individual to whom the Board has granted access to personal information held by it for the purposes of the statistical research."
	As he pointed out in Committee, it is unclear whether the phrase "for the purposes of statistical research" grammatically qualifies the noun "access" or the verb "held". I hope that the amendment clarifies that.
	I will turn to what might be regarded as the more substantive amendments that were tabled by the hon. Member for Fareham and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy). The hon. Lady is right in many ways. The provisions and safeguards for the disclosure of data are not currently consistent and that is part of the purpose of these parts of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman based his remarks on a concern that, if data were shared generally within Government, respondents to surveys might be increasingly reluctant to provide the sort of data that we all require. Clause 36(1) is important because it contains a strong general prohibition on the sharing and disclosure of personal information. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) called it a blanket block.
	There was concern about the interplay with clause 36(4)(a), in the context of sharing information with other Departments. Essentially, subsection 4(a) is an exception to subsection (1). It allows the sharing of data in circumstances in which the House has already considered and enacted provision for such data sharing to take place. In many respects, it would not be appropriate—and perhaps not possible—for the Bill to override the will and settled determination of the House in a variety of other legislation.
	The particular concern, however, was clearly for the future and related to the sharing of data within Departments. The desire of the hon. Member for Fareham in relation to amendment No. 24 is to restrict the provision to apply to disclosures for the purposes of the board, or in other words the purposes of data handling. He may remember the discussions thatwe had in relation to clause 44. It provides for arrangements to see increased data sharing—to the board from Departments and to Departments from the board—in circumstances in which those personal data-sharing arrangements are clear, agreed and specific, the data sharing takes place only for statistical purposes, and supplementary regulations subject to the affirmative procedure are brought before the House, so that the House will have the chance to scrutinise and approve any such arrangements in the future. In that way, we will be able to strike what I started by saying was the balance between the desire to see data sharing for specified and justified purposes, and a concern to see personal data protected with proper confidentiality safeguards.
	Amendment No. 24 would modify clause 36(4)(a), which permits disclosure by the board when
	"it is required or permitted by any enactment".
	The amendment would mean that that would apply only when the information was being made available for statistical purposes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we do not want to limit the provision to allow disclosure only for statistical purposes because that may prevent existing data-sharing practices that occur in the specific cases where Parliament has previously debated and decided that data sharing is in the public interest. For that reason, I hope that he will not press his amendment.
	Amendment No. 40 would allow personal information that was held by the board, its employees, or any other person who had received such information from the board to be used only to pursue the board's functions. I must say to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne that the provision would limit the board too much because if there were other legitimate interests at stake, the board would not be able to disclose. For example, it would not be able to disclose for the purposes of criminal investigation or in response to a court order. Both those exceptions are identified in clause 36(4). She will appreciate that although those purposes are outside the functions of the board, they are necessary, important and in the public interest.
	The purpose of amendment No. 41 is not quite clear to me. It seems to have been designed to allow the National Statistician to disclose personal data in specific circumstances, but if that is the case, the amendment is redundant, because the same exceptions regarding the confidentiality prohibition that cover the National Statistician, as a member of the board, are in place under subsection (4). I am not certain whether it is the hon. Lady's intention that the amendment should remove three of the exceptions in subsection (4): that in paragraph (d), which will allow the board to disclose personal information that has lawfully been made public; that in paragraph (e), which will allow data to be shared if the disclosure occurs in pursuit of a court order—clearly, if the board was subject to a court order and there was no exception to allow the confidentiality restriction to be lifted, board employees would be subject to conflicting legal demands—and that in paragraph (f), which will allow for disclosure of personal information for the purposes of criminal investigations or criminal proceedings.
	I hope that I have been able to give a full explanation of the Government amendments and our concerns about the Opposition amendments.

Vincent Cable: I shall simply say a few words in support of the amendments in this group that are in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy). Essentially, they support and complement the comments of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). The subject of pre-release is, certainly at this stage of our proceedings, the cause of one of the biggest differences between the Government and the Opposition, and there is a degree of frustration about our inability to make progress in clarifying the safeguards surrounding pre-release.
	So far, the Government have defended their position on the rather fundamentalist grounds that pre-release is justified in principle, and therefore a whole raft of current practices are justified. Today, we will not dispute the principle of pre-release; there is good reason for it in certain instances where highly sensitive economic data are concerned, and for limited periods. When the statistical community has commented on the practice, it has usually conceded that point. For example, the Statistics Commission acknowledged in its submission that
	"There is a recognition...that for key data series there will be a need for Ministers to have...some advance warning",
	but it went on to say:
	"In most countries, the prior access is about half an hour—that's a huge difference and it does mean all sorts of mischief gets done".
	The issue, therefore, is not the fundamental principle of pre-release, but the time and the circumstances surrounding it.
	The hon. Member for Fareham quoted Liam Halligan's eloquent piece on the subject, but to take another topical example, comment was recently passed on the British crime survey. The Government are in the habit of releasing crime data statistics and accompanying them with the comment that they are "the best source" of data. Professor Adrian Smith of Queen Mary college, University of London, one of the Government's chief advisers on statistical matters, produced a scathing criticism of that particular interpretation of crime data. He notes that it
	"flies in the face of common sense."
	That same professor produced an excellent report for the Government on mathematics education, so he is clearly not at odds with the Government on fundamentals. He makes the point that there has been a simple misuse of economic statistics through the pre-release process.
	The question is how best to define the boundaries of pre-release. In our exchanges in Committee, there was a to-ing and fro-ing of arguments about other countries' practices. I cited what I thought was probably the best example of good practice: the United States. I quoted the Royal Statistical Society as saying that the President of the United States had half an hour's warning of key economic data, and I said that that demonstrated how tough and restrictive its arrangements were. The Minister subsequently wrote to me—I am grateful for his letter—to correct the Royal Statistical Society and me, and rightly so. He pointed out that the President of the United States has overnight access to data. Clearly, even the best experts can get things wrong.
	The Minister's letter proves his point in a way, but in a wider sense it does not, because the letter makes it clear that in the American experience, pre-release isnot only restricted to overnight access, rather than40 hours, but it is restricted to a very limited range of statistical indicators, and very few people in the United States have any access to the data. He made his point, but he reinforced the perception of the promiscuous way in which the British pre-release system is used and abused, across the Government.
	The other example of a fairly permissive system is Canada; most other countries have either no or very little pre-release, but the Canadians allow overnight access to data, which is reasonably generous. However, they also restrict considerably the uses to which pre-release can be put. They limit considerably the number of people who have access to the data, and they limit its use by non-statisticians. Therefore, the question is not the principle of pre-release—we concede that there is a case for it, for the purposes of this argument—the question is how to apply proper boundaries to it.
	I suspect that when the debate gets to the House of Lords, a strong case will be made by people who have much more direct experience of the matter than we do. I should like to quote Lord Moser, who has been cited on several occasions, and who takes a hard line on the subject. He argues that
	"pre-release should basically be abolished."
	He goes on to say that he thinks pre-release should be
	"perhaps something over one hour, so that the minister can be prepared to answer questions... I would leave it to the new board to decide whether there should be any exceptions. My own view would be to start from no exceptions."
	I suspect that when the Bill reaches the other place there will be amendments along the lines that he suggests.
	We propose something less radical, so I hope that the Government would find it easier to live with. First, we propose amendment No. 36, which, by interposing a couple of words in clause 11, would effectively make pre-release subject to the professional judgments of the statistics board, rather than subject to the current opaque arrangements, the details of which we have not yet seen.
	Secondly, we would provide for pre-release of up to two hours. By international standards, that is generous—it is twice as generous as the period recommended by Lord Moser. It provides a limitation or cap on pre-release data, so the Government should not find it too difficult to accept. It is in a spirit of compromise that we suggest acceptance of the principle of pre-release while imposing boundaries on the process itself and the time.

Rob Marris: We discussed this subject extensively on Second Reading and in Committee. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General to the Chamber. I was pleased that on Second Reading and in Committee the Financial Secretary said that he would review the operation of the Government's framework, assuming that it is accepted tonight, in 12 months' time. However, I must tell my right hon. Friend—I believe that she will reply to the debate—that I find the general sense of the Opposition's proposals attractive. A pre-release period of 40.5 hours for non-market and market-sensitive information is far too long. I do not know whether it should be as short as two hours or 30 minutes, as suggested by the hon. Member for Twickenham(Dr. Cable), but a 40.5-hour period for non-market-sensitive information—that is my understanding of the regime—is far too long. If the amendments are not accepted, I encourage my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to undertake a thorough review in 12 months' time, because the present time limit is too long.

John Healey: We have had a brief and succinct debate which, in many ways, retreads the detailed arguments that were made in Committee. May I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for his remarks about my letter? It is important, as I said in Committee, to make sure that everyone has precise, accurate information about international comparisons. I appreciate the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), particularly about the length of pre-release access. He clearly supports the principle of pre-release, and he accepted that we propose to tighten the system, but he urged us to go further. I welcome, too, the contribution of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), who brings his expertise as a member of the Treasury Committee to bear on our discussion. I acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), although I would not necessarily choose to quote as an authority on the subject the editor of  The Sunday Telegraph.
	It is encouraging that there is consensus on the principle of pre-release access. Indeed, there was consensus on our proposals in the Treasury Committee report on the Bill. It is accepted that provision is required to codify access and make it clearer, and more enforceable and consistent. Beyond that, there are differences in two principal areas. First, what is the best way of making that provision and, secondly, what are the appropriate time limits to set on pre-release access? I hope that I can deal with the detailed points that have been made on both issues and, in doing so, explain the Government's approach and the step forward that we have taken. We are setting up, in the Bill in general and in these provisions, a new system that can evolve in the light of experience and of the emerging and changing demands of the statistics system. I can reassure the House, as I did in Committee, that we will review the operation of pre-release arrangements 12 months after their introduction.
	There is clear, international acceptance of the principle of pre-release access to statistics. Indeed, I explained in Committee:
	"Pre-release access allows the Government to account for the impact and implications of policy when important new statistics are released." ——[Official Report, Statistics and Registration Service Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2007; c. 188.]
	That is at the heart of the case for pre-release arrangements. The public have a right to expect, and the British media have come to demand, that Government Ministers account for the impact and implications of policy when statistics are released—not hours afterwards or in the days that follow. The provision therefore provides an important safeguard, as it enables the Government to consider, particularly in the case of market-sensitive data, any contingency measures that may be needed alongside a statistical release to guard against a disproportionate or costly market or public reaction.

Rob Marris: May I point out, as I did in Committee, that it is not only a question of market-sensitive information? It may be a question of health-sensitive information. If statistics come to light that suggest that there is a rapidly developing health problem, such as avian flu, in one part of the country, Ministers and the Department—in this case, it would be the Department of Health—would have a chance to react and put measures in place so that when those statistics came into the public domain, there would not be as much panic, if I can put it that way, because Ministers could say that they were aware of a cluster of avian flu cases, and had taken steps to address the issue. It is not simply a question of market-sensitive information.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee. If he hears me out, he will hear me emphasise again that we do propose to put the pre-release arrangements on a statutory footing, because of their special importance. Unlike the proposals from the two Opposition Front Benches for those arrangements to be captured in the code of practice, we propose an approach that sets them out in statute, in regulation, not in a code that is backed by but not set out in statute, as advocated by the hon. Gentleman's party.
	Given the importance of pre-release for the rightful accountability of Ministers to Parliament and the public, as I described, and given the recognition that concerns about pre-release arrangements and pre-release practices have contributed to public scepticism about the way that the Government handle data, a special provision that brings the detail of arrangements back before the House and captures them in regulation that will be subject to the affirmative procedure of the House—in other words, debated before they may be approved by the House—is the proper approach, rather than saying that this is a matter for the statistics board, its code of practice and its sole decision. A code that was backed by statute but not spelled out in statute would arguably have less force.
	Given the importance of pre-release, the Bill has been drafted to ensure that the pre-release arrangements as they are currently set out and operated will be tightened, as well as being given special status in the new system. What I announced previously remains the Government's firm intention—the Government will tighten the current pre-release arrangements. The length of time that pre-release is available will be aligned at 40.5 hours for all national statistics, not just market-sensitive statistics. The new, tighter arrangements will be set out, as I said, in secondary legislation. I also announced that the order will include principles to provide guidance for Departments and to ensure that pre-release access is limited to those individuals who require the data for operational reasons.
	Consistent with the Government approach of designing a general statistical system that can be developed in light of experience, I have given the House an undertaking that we will review the operation of the system 12 months after its introduction.

John Healey: The present arrangements involve the publication of the list of national statistics and of the arrangements that Departments have in place for pre-release. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The arrangements are somewhat patchy and variable between Departments. Part of the purpose of introducing a new, tighter system is to ensure that it is more consistent across Government. I have made it clear and will repeat in a moment that I expect the board to monitor carefully and to make its findings publicly available, in order that it and others can assess whether the terms of the new system for pre-release are being met.
	I believe strongly and argue to Members participating in the debate that it is important—unlike the rest of the code, the content of which will be backed by but not prescribed in statute—that clause 11 provides for legislation to prescribe the principles and rules for access to official statistics in their final form ahead of publication. As has been acknowledged in the debate, I wrote to members of the Committee in advance of the Committee's discussions about this, setting out my expectations as to the types of issues that those principles would seek to deal with. I have placed a copy of that letter, dated 19 January, in the Library of the House so that others may more easily consult it.
	The issues are similar if not identical to some of those identified in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Fareham. Unlike the proposals from the Opposition Front Bench, the order developed under the Government's proposals, by virtue of the current clause 62, will be subject to further scrutiny, discussion, and approval under the affirmative resolution procedure of the House. That will ensure strong parliamentary scrutiny of and input into the proposed arrangements, with Parliament's consent being required before any order becomes binding. Given the importance that all Members attach to the pre-release arrangements, that seems an appropriate approach.
	Importantly, and again unlike the proposals from the Opposition Front Benches, compliance with the new arrangements will be independently assessed and reported on, including to the House, by the board. Over time, this will help to ensure that the arrangements are consistently interpreted, consistently applied, better understood and more transparent, with a stronger role for Parliament in ensuring that Ministers and Departments are properly abiding by the terms of the arrangements that the House has authorised.
	I expect that over time, as they become well established, the new arrangements, together with the creation of a central publication hub to separate statistical releases from policy statements, will reinforce trust and confidence in official statistics and in the new and tighter pre-release arrangements.
	On the substance of new clause 5, which the hon. Member for Fareham proposes would replaceclause 11, I have already explained why the Government remain certain that Ministers, rather than the board, should be charged with preparing the new pre-release arrangements. Our proposals, unlike those in new clause 5, provide for independent assessment of compliance with the rules and for the parliamentary scrutiny of the arrangements before they come into effect.
	Clause 11(4) lists a number of subjects which may be provided for in the new order. As I explained, it is the Government's intention that the secondary legislation should include rules and principles covering those topics. As I have also explained in some detail, the Bill provides for the scrutiny of these arrangements. It is for Parliament to have the capacity to ensure that the new arrangements are suitably comprehensive. Setting out such a list in a prescriptive fashion on the face of the Bill would add nothing.
	The requirement on the board to publish information on who receives pre-release access is contained in subsection (5)(b) of new clause 5. It is a good example of the over-prescription of the contents of pre-release arrangements tied up in statute in primary legislation. Under the current protocol on release practices, Departments are required to publish lists of who is entitled to privileged early access and for how long for each statistical release. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made. I expect that to continue in the new system and to be clearer and more consistent.
	When one considers that the last significant primary legislation on statistics was in 1947, the risk of codifying in the Bill arrangements that may prove too inflexible or inappropriate at this stage, and in this detail, is obvious to all. We may not wish to, or be able to wait a further 60 years to alter any primary legislative steps that we take in this narrow and detailed area. I also expect the secondary legislation covering the rules and principles for deciding the number of officials in each Department who receive pre-release access to tighten these arrangements and to make them more consistent across Government.
	Subsection (6) of the new clause would require statistical producers to comply with the new arrangements and to consult the board on matters of their interpretation. Compliance and consistent interpretation will be much more effectively achieved by assessment, monitoring and reporting by the independent board, according to the published and ratified pre-release arrangements and reporting back to this House where necessary.

John Healey: The principal point that I am urging on the House is not that it should wait and see but that the importance of pre-release arrangements requires us to adopt an approach that does not incorporate them in a code of practice produced by the board. As far as I can see at this stage, I have given, in my letter and in my explanations to the Committee and to the House, an indication of what we expect the regulations to cover. As soon as we are in a position to produce the draft regulations, we will do so.
	Contrary to the approach proposed in the new clause, the Government's approach brings with it a much sharper and more meaningful sanction for non-compliance. The board can remove national statistic status from statistics that are found to have been prepared or handled in a manner contrary to the code of practice, including in relation to pre-release arrangements.
	In summary, I cannot accept amendment No. 35, which would compel the board to include in the code of practice matters relating to pre-release access to official statistics. Nor can I accept the proposed limit on pre-release hours. I do not believe that two hours is sufficient to take the kinds of measures that mightbe required. Many countries, including Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Japan and the USA, provide for pre-release access well in excess of 2 hours; indeed, they receive access to certain statistics at least on the day before general release. Particularly in times of economic instability, that enables the Government to consider and plan contingency measures or to release further clarifying information that may prevent the sort of disproportionate and costly public or market reaction that concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
	Amendment No. 37 is consistent with the Liberal Democrat amendments that would give power to the board to include pre-release access in the code. That would allow the board to make changes to the existing code provisions on pre-release. I cannot accept the amendment because I do not agree that pre-release arrangements should be for the board to determine. It is proper that that is seen as part of the accountability of Ministers to the public and to Parliament. The proper process is to bring such proposals back before the House and subject them to the established procedure for affirmative regulation, thereby providing further scrutiny, securing the House's approval, and ensuring that the House subsequently plays a more important and active role in ensuring that the standards and rules that we set out are met.
	I hope that the new clause will not be pressed to a vote, but if it is, I must ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:No. 49, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
	'(c) at least one person appointed by Scottish Ministers.'.
	No. 57, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
	'(c) at least one person appointed by Welsh Ministers.'.
	No. 3, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Cabinet Office'.
	No. 50, in page 2, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).
	No. 4, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Cabinet Office'.
	No. 58, in page 2, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 5, in page 2, line 12, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Cabinet Office'.
	No. 6, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Cabinet Office'.
	No. 7, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Cabinet Office'.
	No. 51, in page 11, line 13, clause 27, leave out
	'with the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer'.
	No. 59, in page 11, line 20, leave out
	'with the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer'.
	No. 52, in page 11, line 39, leave out subsection (9).
	No. 53, in page 21, line 4, clause 45, leave out subsection (7).
	No. 54, in page 21, line 7, leave out 'and the Treasury'.
	No. 55, in page 24, line 16, clause 49, leave out subsection (7).
	No. 56, in page 24, line 19, leave out 'and the Treasury'.

Theresa Villiers: Amendments Nos. 2 to 7 would transfer the residual ministerial functions from the Treasury to the Cabinet Office. I understand the concerns behind the other amendments, tabled by the Scottish National party, which would reduce the Treasury's powers in matters relevant to the devolved Administrations. It is difficult to get the balance right between those Administrations and the Government in this context, but there is a need for some institutional co-ordination across the country and across the structures. As it stands, I do not think that there is a case for removing the input from the centre. I am not, therefore, minded to support those amendments.
	On amendments Nos. 2 to 7, we would have preferred the residual powers to be taken out of ministerial hands and transferred to Parliament, and to set up the new system along the same lines as the National Audit Office. Those arguments were not accepted in Committee and we shall not press them, but we see this option as second best. The Minister dismissed similar amendments in Committee on the basis that the ministerial functions were not significant and that the point of the Bill was to take all significant powers away from Ministers and to vest them in the independent board. It is true that the Bill will reduce ministerial involvement in the statistical system, and that is welcome. That move does, indeed, reduce the significance of the choice of Department to carry out the residual remaining functions. However, the residual functions left with Ministers are still significant. Most important of all, clause 3 gives Ministers the power to determine the size of the board and to appoint its members. There are also important powers in clause 27, which gives the Chancellor significant powers on direction in the event that the board fails to perform its functions, and in clause 62, which contains important functions in relation to secondary legislation and orders. We are not raising a theoretical question; we are talking about powers that are genuinely important for the way in which the new structure for running statistical services will operate.
	There are three key questions that we should ask when considering the amendments. The first is which Department is least likely to interfere with the priorities and the work of the board.

Rob Marris: My understanding is that the Cabinet Office deals with social inclusion, for example. In fact, the Minister responsible for that is my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden). In determining whether any Government have made inroads on social exclusion—something which the hon. Lady's party at last, I am glad to say, welcomes—surely the conflict potential would also apply to the Cabinet Office.

Theresa Villiers: I certainly agree that whatever Department we choose, we are unlikely to eliminate entirely the possibility of conflict, but it is more intense in relation to the Treasury than it would be in relation to the Cabinet Office.
	We have to bear in mind that the Cabinet Office has a long-recognised remit to co-ordinate the activities of different Departments, which would also equip it appropriately for the functions that we are considering. The Treasury may try to exert considerable control over Departments to an unprecedented degree, but cross-departmental co-ordination is still the formal responsibility of the Cabinet Office, acting on behalf of the Prime Minister. The co-ordinating role features prominently in its departmental objectives. As has been emphasised throughout the debate, the work of the board can and should go beyond scrutinising the economic statistics traditionally associated with the ONS. The board's work should encompass a wide range of social statistics on crime, education, health and social exclusion, which are produced by a range of Departments. It is therefore appropriate that the Department tasked with residual ministerial functions should have an eye for cross-departmental concerns. With the insight that one would expect from an organisation with a long and distinguished history, the Royal Statistical Society, which has contributed so helpfully to the debate, tells us that what we need is "an honest broker". I think that we are more likely to find one in the Cabinet Office than in the Treasury.
	Secondly, we must ask which Department will give the board and the National Statistician the most effective assistance in bringing other Departments into line when they fail to live up to the code of practice. That returns us to territory that we covered briefly when discussing the role of the National Statistician. The House would do well to listen to the advice given by Lord Moser, whose wisdom has been called upon a number of times this evening. Giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, he was adamant about the importance of a link with the Cabinet Office, in which he saw a re-emphasis on the direct link with the Prime Minister, to whom that Department reports. He said
	"This is a very real link... I would see the Prime Minister quite regularly and he would take serious interest. That obviouslywas a great strength, especially vis-à-vis other departments. So it was much less difficult to influence other ministries when it was known that behind me was the Prime Minister."
	Lord Moser has made clear his view that the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to shift responsibilities relating to the ONS from the Cabinet Office to the Treasury was a mistake. One of Lord Moser's more controversial successors, Len Cook, pointed out:
	"Almost all of the current concerns involve departments where only the Prime Minister has authority to challenge ministers."
	Today, we have an opportunity to rectify the error made by my right hon. and learned Friend. We may now have a Chancellor who is perhaps considerably more powerful than the Prime Minister, but there is no guarantee that that will continue to be the case. It would therefore be valuable for the board and the National Statistician to have the direct backing of both the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister.
	Thirdly, we must ask which Department will be most effective in arguing the case for the board and statistical services in determining the appropriate level of funding. We believe that the Cabinet Office would be the most effective, for the simple reason that it is not the Treasury. It can provide a ministerial voice outside the Treasury to argue the case for statistical services. It is well known that each Department must argue its case for funding with the Treasury. Under the structure envisaged by the Bill, that would involve one Treasury Minister strolling down the corridor for a chat with another Treasury Minister. There would be no external pressure on the Treasury. Even institutions at arm's length from the Government, such as the BBC, tend to rely on a Minister to speak up for them on funding matters, although of course they have the opportunity to make their own case directly as well.
	The Minister dismissed similar arguments in Committee, on the ground that there would be no debate on funding between Ministers of the kind that I have described because the Bill would take the board's funding out of the normal spending round. We believe that funding decisions should be taken out of the hands of Ministers and transferred to Parliament. If that were done, my third question would become irrelevant. There would be no need for a Minister to speak up for the board in the spending round because Parliament, not the Treasury, would make the decision. Sadly, however, that is not how the Bill is drafted. All we are told about funding is that it will be determined on a five-yearly basis by a "transparent formula". What the Minister has told us so far about the funding arrangements is insufficient to give me confidence that the board will not need a Minister to stand up for it in negotiating with the Treasury.
	There is a fourth reason why we think the Cabinet Office would be a better home for the residual ministerial responsibilities in the Bill. Here I pray in aid the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who said that in transferring residual responsibilities to the Cabinet Office we would demonstrate that we were making a visible difference. Tom Griffin, the former director of statistics at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, said:
	"To sever the link with the Treasury now...would be a very visible move towards independence."
	Severing that link would constitute a further break with the current arrangements, which all now agree have not worked satisfactorily. We believe that it would make a useful contribution to building trust in official statistics, and we commend the amendments to the House.

Alun Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the speech of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers). She gave three reasons for seeking to change accountability in Government. When any such change is made, it must be recognised that breaking one set of relationships in favour of another means that they must be reconnected in a different way. It is never quite as straightforward as it appears. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that the interest of the Cabinet Office and that of the Treasury—and, indeed, the interests of a variety of other Departments, as well as the interest of the Prime Minister of the time—are important in all this. The overall oversight of the Prime Minister in seeking integrity in the way in which statistics are prepared is certainly important, but I do not think it will ever percolate down into the detail. The lead of a specific Department and a specific Cabinet Minister is therefore very significant.
	What I found most disappointing about the hon. Lady's speech was the negative and defensive nature of her three questions. First, she asked which Department was least likely to try to interfere. I realise that after10 years in opposition the Conservative party has become rather negative in its approach to all sorts of things, and has done some of the things for which it castigated the then Opposition until 1997.

Alun Michael: I am more interested in the positive, and that is what I shall argue for. The defensiveness and the defeated tone of the Opposition's contribution is a little sad. In fact, the use of objective statisticsin the development of public policy ought to be welcomed by all parties as creating an opportunity for an objective, open debate about some of the important issues of our time. Everyone should welcome that positive aspect, which is really what the Bill is all about.
	The hon. Lady's second question was, I concede, more positive, in that she asked which Department was more likely to be effective. However, she brushed over that fairly lightly. Thirdly, she asked who would argue the case for funding most vigorously. Arguing for funding in Government is always challenging, and I would have thought that arguments within the Treasury were more likely to be successful than the arguments of those of us who have had the experience of arguing from outside that august institution. Certainly that is the perception of Ministers in every other Department.

Alun Michael: I think that that is a rather negative reason for keeping those powers within the Treasury, and I concede that the hon. Lady has a point.
	However, I would rather answer a different question, which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet did not raise in her introduction, namely, which body would be the most keen to ensure that an evidence-based approach to public policy development is pursued within Government and within all institutions of Government—agencies of Government, local government, local health boards and all the other institutions that provide service and spend the money that is voted to them by Parliament? That question addresses an issue that is at the heart of the Bill.
	The whole point of statistics—this was my reason for welcoming Government amendment No. 48—is to make sure that there is an objective basis for policy development and for the way in which we tackle real problems and link different issues. That is why I am so keen that we should be able to do local overlays at ward and sub-ward level of the impact of health situations, educational attainment and criminal justice and youth justice activities. All such matters must be joined in order to create healthy communities. Communities exist fundamentally at the local level. National statistics are important, but the more that they inform the quality of life of individuals in the street, the borough or the village—or whatever kind of local community we are talking about across the country—the more we will be using statistics positively.
	Therefore, the hon. Lady's questions address subsidiary issues. I agree that it is important to make sure that there is not inappropriate interference by Ministers, but the idea that there is such interference is media and Opposition mythology. Over 10 years, during most of which time I was a Minister, I have never seen the slightest opportunity for interference with statistics or for meddling with them. If the hon. Lady knows about anything that I missed during that 10-year period, I would be very interested to learn about it. What I did find on a variety of occasions was that it was necessary to ask the people preparing the statistics—in the Home Office, for instance—"Why can't you answer this particular question, which is important for the development of public policy?" Let me give the example that I mentioned in Committee. When the Labour party came to office in 1997, it had a commitment to halve the time it took to get young offenders before the courts. For my part, that commitment was well informed by my experience, when I chaired the juvenile bench, of having young offenders come before me who did not have a clue what accusation they were answering to on that particular occasion. They might have been accused over a period of time of having committed a long string of burglaries, and they would say, "Sorry, mister, but which one are we talking about?" The hearing that followed would be totally irrelevant to their lives, and certainly to the amendment of their future ways and career.

Alun Michael: Actually, there has been less change at the Treasury than at many other Departments over the past few years.  [ Interruption. ] As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) says, its leadership has been more dependable and continuous than the Liberal Democrat leadership.
	The way in which the current comprehensive spending review is being prepared—I hope that the Opposition parties are taking that issue seriously—shows that there is a serious level of engagement. An example is the contribution being made by the third sector, the social enterprise sector and voluntary and community groups. I honestly think that the level of engagement is more serious than in previous spending reviews from 1997 onward, and infinitely more serious than in earlier reviews. The Treasury is therefore positively engaged in the policy development process, so it will be concerned to ensure that the statistics on which that policy is based are identified and objective and address the real interests of the public. The public interest test has to be about the long-term interests of the public in every constituency in the country that we Members of Parliament represent.
	I suggest that there is nothing to be gained by pursuing the three questions that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet asked, but there is a great deal to be gained by trying to nail down—as I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will do in responding to this debate—the Treasury to ensure that it is fully engaged in ensuring that the public will benefit in every respect as a result of it being the Department responsible for the residual functions, as the Bill sets out.

Julia Goldsworthy: I agree with a lot of what theright hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) said about what the objectives should be, but despite what he said in answer to my intervention, I am still not clear why the Treasury is better able to perform this role than the Cabinet Office. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) are very similar to those that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and I tabled in Committee; however, I understand that they are a fall-back mechanism, and that her preferred configuration has not been pursued.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said in Committee, the point behind our amendments is not Treasury-bashing. We have always made it clear that the Treasury has taken some very important decisions that have signalled a willingness to give independence to important institutions such as the Bank of England. Indeed, perhaps that is what is disappointing about this provision. The Treasury was willing to send the clear signal that there would be full independence for the Bank, and a similar approach to national statistics—giving this residual power to the Cabinet Office, which is one step away from the Treasury—would be an effective way of underlining the fact that the Bill takes important steps toward creating a more independent statistics system.
	Although there is a degree of ministerial control over appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee, we have not seen cronyism or the making of political appointments. We welcome that of course, but it does mean that the structure is such that that will continue to be so. For that reason, it would be better to include in the Bill a clear statement of independence, if possible, and to shut down any possibility of an organisation's saying that the opportunity exists to erode such independence.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham also previously pointed out that there is a potential conflict of interest. If the Treasury takes on its new role as the guardian of statistics, we should remember that it is also a massive consumer of statistics. The Cabinet Office already takes on many roles in the overview of government, and it has the potential to resolve conflicts of interest. Such conflicts of interest would be less obvious if the Cabinet Office were given this power. Reference has been made to the need for a positive attitude in the collecting of evidence-based information. I do not see why any other Department would be able to perform that function less ably than the Treasury.
	What I am saying is that all these points have been made on Second Reading and in Committee. At this stage, there is no strong argument against having the board based in the Treasury, but, having said that, I am not convinced by the argument that it should stay just within the Treasury. Just because the Department is a massive consumer of statistics, it does not necessarily qualify it as the guardian of them.
	On that basis, if, ultimately, the National Statistician is appointed by the Crown, it makes sense logically for accountability for that power to go back to the Prime Minister. That would be more rational and symmetrical. I thus have considerable sympathy for the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet.

Rob Marris: I have to say that I find the Opposition's arguments singularly unconvincing and somewhat contradictory. There is talk of the Cabinet Office having some sort of cross-cutting overview role, but the Opposition then leap from that to suggest that somehow the Cabinet is more disinterested in statistics than the Treasury. That seems to be a contradictory position to adopt.
	I agree that the Cabinet Office has an overview role. In our modern form of government, so, in a sense, does the Treasury, whoever is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that in itself may be no reason for shifting statistics from the Treasury to the Cabinet Office. At best it is a kind of equality of arms. As to the co-ordinating role of the Treasury and the wider implications of that—though not the specificity in respect of what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) said; she did not use such words, but spoke in terms of the possibility of control freakery in the Treasury—we saw only last week the not very edifying spectacle of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) running around as shadow Chancellor trying to assert that very role within the Conservative party, saying "Nobody makes spending promises except me". That is the co-ordinating role of a Chancellor of the Exchequer—in this case, a shadow Chancellor—in our modern constitution.
	The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred to the Cabinet Office as an "honest broker". I have been a Member for only six years, but I have sat on five Finance Bill Committees, and I have to say that I find the implication behind that remark—that the Treasury is not honest—rather disturbing. I have not found the Treasury to be dishonest. Although the Cabinet Office might indeed be an honest broker in terms of the hon. Lady's amendments, I have not found the Treasury to be in any sense a dishonest broker. Perhaps the hon. Lady has some contrary evidence, but she seems to have a rather starry-eyed view of the Cabinet Office.
	Certainly the Cabinet Office reports to the Prime Minister. The hon. Lady may or may not be aware that it has its own Cabinet Minister—the former Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), a very senior Member of Parliament. Furthermore, the Prime Minister is also the First Lord of the Treasury, so, according to the hon. Lady's model, we are back in the Treasury. What is more, the Treasury reports to the Prime Minister, as do all Cabinet Ministers and their ministerial teams. That is the nature of our modern constitution.
	As to funding, the Financial Secretary said earlier in the debate—he certainly said it either on Second Reading or in Committee—that the new board and the associated machinery operating it will receive five years' funding to be decided outside the comprehensive spending review. If I were a body whose dealings with the Government were to conducted in a manner similar to that proposed for the board—partly at arm's length—I would be quite pleased to be within the Treasury because that is the Department with the cheque book. I would consider that I would get a better deal from the Treasury than from other Departments such as the Cabinet Office. That is not to say that the Cabinet Office could not do it, but the Treasury has the money and the Cabinet Office does not. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet acknowledged the five-year funding commitment, to decided outside the comprehensive spending review, but it is worth repeating it because it rather undercuts her argument for moving the board from the remit of the Treasury to that of the Cabinet Office.
	The hon. Lady's proposal for the board's funding to be decided by Parliament, not by the Treasury, is a novel approach to our democracy. It has always been my understanding ever since I was in this place that, yes, funding requests are decided by Parliament, but through estimates and other procedures. They are put down by different Departments, so which Department would propose the new board's request for resources to Parliament? Under the architecture of the Bill, as I understand it, the board itself would not make such a request for funding to Parliament. The idea of direct funding by Parliament being somehow different if the board and its machinery were in the Cabinet Office rather than in the Treasury therefore completely falls by the wayside.
	The visible difference to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred relates to another point that she made in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) about the perception of ministerial interference. Perhaps she will tell us what other countries operate in the manner that she proposes. Another of the proposals put forward by the official Opposition involved a system that operated only in Mongolia, so far as the Government could ascertain. What are they doing in Mongolia?

Stewart Hosie: I wish to speak to amendmentNo. 49, which is tabled in my name, and to amendments Nos. 50 to 59, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Before I do that, I should like to comment on the introductory remarks of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), who said that she was not minded to support the amendments. I was reminded of a story about a friend of mine, who is a member of the judiciary. He suggests that, when considering the outcome of a court case, it is always best to hear the evidence led first.
	The arguments for the amendments were well rehearsed in Committee. However, because they involve important points of principle regarding the ability of the devolved Administrations to act independently of the UK Government in relation to statistics relating to matters over which the devolved Administrations have sole competence, and because the amendments are also designed to temper the interference of the Treasury generally and the Chancellor specifically in matters that ought to be none of their business, I will reprise the arguments in a little more detail.
	It is also worth saying that, while my amendments in Committee related only to Scotland, those in the group under discussion today relate also to Wales, and the issues generally relate also to Northern Ireland. I am grateful to colleagues from the nations and the Province for their interest in and support for the amendments.

Alun Michael: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that his colleagues from Wales are so interested in thetopic that not one of them has joined him to debate it? Those of us in the Chamber who represent Welsh constituencies note with interest that interference in Welsh affairs has to depend on a Scottish voice.

Stewart Hosie: I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I tend not to make comments on such matters, although they have been related to me in the past. However, there is not one Scottish Labour Member in the Chamber, which is not usual in debates such as these. I will relay the right hon. Gentleman's comments to my friends in Plaid Cymru.
	The fundamental propositions in the legislation relating to the amendments are as follows. First, clause 3 gives the impression that an appointment to the new board will be made from each of the devolved Administrations, but the measure permits nothing of the kind. In fact, the Bill states that the appointments will be made by the Treasury.
	Secondly, the legislation purports to allow the devolved Administrations the authority to step in if things go wrong in the future, to direct, if the board has failed either
	"to comply with its objective, or...to perform any of its functions relating to...devolved statistics".
	In certain circumstances, the provision will allow the Administrations to take over those functions. However, that power, like the power to appoint, is not what it seems. The power to direct can be used only with the direct consent of the Chancellor himself, as set out in clause 27(2). Given that such direction could be carried out only after failures relating to statistics that are the direct responsibility of the devolved Administration, the requirement for the Chancellor's consent represents an overbearing and unnecessary interference in the day-to-day operations of the devolved Administrations in the production of their statistics. That is the aspect of greatest concern to me, and I shall return to it. It is wholly wrong to allow the Chancellor the power of veto to stop a devolved Administration exercising, rightly, the power to direct if the new board fails to carry out its responsibilities for devolved statistics.
	Thirdly, the Bill appears to offer the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland the power to instruct the disclosure of information to and from public bodies and the new board. However, those powers, too, are not all they seem. The powers for Scotland under clauses 45 and 49 can be used only with the consent of the Treasury. Like the power to direct, the power of disclosure applies only to information required for statistics in areas under the direct authority of the devolved Administration. The legislation for Wales is different, not least because when the Treasury wants to make disclosures relating to Wales it must, as described in clause 44(8), first seek the consent of a Welsh Minister.
	My amendments address those three issues. They would give Ministers in the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales both the respect that their mandate should allow and, more important, the full range of powers that they ought to have to carry out their work armed with the best, most accurate and relevant statistical information they need.
	Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 57 and 58 are designed to take particular cognisance of the needs of the nations by ensuring that a member from each of the devolved Administrations is appointed to the new board. Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 59 would confer the right to direct without the Chancellor's veto. Finally, amendments Nos. 53 to 56 would ensure that the power of disclosure in Scotland could be exercised as required in relation to wholly devolved statistics. I want to remove the unnecessary Treasury veto.
	Earlier, I said that my most serious concerns were about the need for the consent of the Chancellor in relation to the power to direct, so I look forward to the Minister's response to the amendments on that subject. However, the Treasury has shown some willingness to move. Amendment No. 26, which will be discussed in the next group even though it relates directly to the group under discussion, gives a welcome transparency about direction. My difficulty with amendment No. 26 is that that welcome transparency would apply only after consent had been granted, not in advance.
	I hope that the Financial Secretary can go a little further tonight and show a little more movement. If he could tell the House that consent will routinely be granted in normal circumstances, that would be helpful. Better still, if he could tell the House the specific circumstances in which consent would normally not be granted and perhaps give an example, that wouldbe welcome. If he could tell us that consent would not be granted only in circumstances in which the public disclosure of a direction against a particular set of statistics would be market-sensitive or the set of statistics against which a direction was made would be market-sensitive—if those were the sorts of conditions or criteria that would apply when consent to direct was not given—it would go a long way towards soothing my concerns over the requirement for consent from the Chancellor beforea direction could be given by one of the devolved Administrations in the case of a failure by the new board.

John Healey: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman, who seemed to be paraphrasing me, an absolute assurance that a direction would not be issued in a particular set of hypothetical circumstances. However, I will explain why the Chancellor's consent is important.
	Clause 27 is designed to address a serious failure in the responsibilities and duties of the board that would amount to a dereliction of its duties under the Bill. The clause rightly gives Scottish and Welsh Ministers the power of direction with respect to their areas of responsibility—Scottish or Welsh devolved statistics—with the consent of the Chancellor. It is right that the Chancellor's consent should be required for such directions to be made as a last resort, because any such failure relating to Scottish or Welsh statistics could affect the position of statistics throughout the UK. It would be important to ensure that the accountability for such last-resort action were shared and thatthe directions to the board were consistent with each other. The consent will ensure that directions are co-ordinated and that the Bill will not create powers of direction that might be conflicting. I hope that the hon. Gentleman sees the sense of, and the basis for, the provision.
	The hon. Gentleman also tabled amendmentsNos. 53 to 56, which would remove the requirement of the Treasury to give consent when Scottish Ministers made regulations to break down the barriers to data sharing between Scottish public authorities and the board for statistical purposes. The provisions on data sharing set out a mechanism through which data may be shared, for statistical purposes only, between the board and a public authority, and vice versa, via secondary legislation.
	The key point regarding the amendments is that the mechanism in clauses 45 and 49 mirrors that in the other clauses on data sharing. The mechanism allows regulations to be made to allow data to be shared with the consent of both the Treasury, as the body with residual responsibility for the board, and the Minister responsible for the other body involved in the data sharing. That will ensure that the Ministers responsible for both the body disclosing the data and the body receiving the data are content for the regulations to be made, which will be an important safeguard in our data-sharing mechanism.
	Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, including in today's debate, I have stressed the importance of the independence of the board—we have examined that in great detail. If the provisions on independenceare effective, the question of who has residual responsibility will become much less significant. I have made it clear before that I think, on balance, that the board could benefit—it is right to see this in positive terms, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) urges—from having the Treasury as a link with the Government.
	The functions are better discharged by the Treasury for several reasons. I think that all would accept that the Treasury has a long experience of working with and understanding statistics. It has a role in co-ordinating performance reporting and monitoring across government. I strongly disagree that the Treasury is somehow interested in only economic statistics, because more than any other Department it has an interest in ensuring that we have a good evidence base, including statistics on departmental policies, given the importance of statistics to reporting on departmental performance and to understanding the levers for the successful reform and development of public services, in which the Treasury plays a leading and co-ordinating role. The Treasury is well placed to play a co-ordinating role across Government, as it does on so many other occasions, such as during the spending review or the Budget process.
	Given that background, I maintain that the Treasury is well placed to play a constructive part with respect to the board and its future role. The Treasury Committee took that view in its report, and the Government concur, so I hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) will not press her amendment.

John Healey: This group of amendments deals with a number of issues, both substantive and technical, that were raised with me in Committee, and that I said I would take another look at. They relate to the dismissal of board members and laying directions before the House, and there are some consequential amendments relating to Scotland, too.
	Let me start with Government amendment No. 25. We had an animated debate in Committee that gave me unexpected insights into the domestic lives of certain Committee members and their disciplinary regimes for children. I rejected the idea of putting the naughty step on a statutory basis, but I agreed to look again at the grounds on which, in clause 4, a non-executive member of the board can be dismissed for misbehaviour. I hope that Members will accept the amendment, which specifies that there are grounds for dismissal if a member
	"is unfit for office by reason of misconduct".
	I hope that that is helpful, and that hon. Members find it clearer than the previous designation of misbehaviour.
	Turning to Government amendment No. 26, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) proposed in Committee an amendment suggesting that a copy of any direction made under clause 27 be placed in the Library of each House of Parliament. I needed to consider the position of the devolved Administrations, so amendment No. 26 requires that copies of any direction issued to the board under clause 27 be laid before Parliament and the relevant devolved legislatures.
	Government amendment No. 30 ensures that the Registrar General for Scotland continues to have access to patient registration information currently held on the NHS central register for England and Wales, because it is our intention to transfer that register away from its current home in the Office for National Statistics.
	Finally, Government amendments Nos. 28, 29, 31,33 and 32 allow a translation of freedom of information and ombudsman legislation into Scotland, so that the provision for such action in Scotland is consistent with that in England.
	 It being Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Amendment agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 4, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert—
	'(1) In the exercise of its functions under sections 8 to 19 the Board is to have the objective of promoting and safeguardingthe production and publication of official statistics that serve the public good.
	(2) In subsection (1) the reference to serving the public good includes in particular—
	(a) informing the public about social and economic matters, and
	(b) assisting in the development and evaluation of public policy.
	(3) The Board is accordingly, in the exercise of its functions under sections 8 to 19, to promote and safeguard—'.— [John Healey.]

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 16, line 20, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
	No. 29, in page 16, line 21, at end insert—
	'(3) Section 26 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland)Act 2002 (asp 13) (prohibitions on disclosure) does not, by virtue of section 36 above, apply to personal information which—
	(a) is held by a Scottish public authority who has received it directly or indirectly from the Board, and
	(b) is not held by that authority on behalf of the Board.
	(4) In subsection (3) "Scottish public authority" has the same meaning as in the Freedom of Information (Scotland)Act 2002.'. — [John Healey.]

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 28, line 28, leave out 'In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13)' and insert
	'The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
	(2) In Schedule 2'.
	No. 32, in page 28, line 31, at end insert—
	'(3) In the Notes to Schedule 2, after the paragraph relating to the Ministry of Defence insert—
	"Statistics Board
	In the case of the Statistics Board, no investigation is to be conducted in relation to any action taken by or on behalf of the Board in the exercise of any of its functions where the function is being exercised only in relation to Scottish devolved statistics (within the meaning of section 63 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007)."
	(4) The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002(asp 11) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).
	(5) In section 7 (matters which may be investigated: restrictions), after subsection (6A) insert—
	"(6B) The Ombudsman must not investigate action taken by or on behalf of the Statistics Board in the exercise of any of its functions unless the function is being exercised only in relation to Scottish devolved statistics (within the meaning of section 63 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007)."
	(6) In schedule 2 (persons liable to investigation), after paragraph 91 (Security Industry Authority) insert—
	"91A The Statistics Board."' .—[John Healey.]

John Healey: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill establishes an independent statistics system in the UK that will help to deliver the Government's principal objectives of a high-quality and high-integrity system; clearly defined roles, responsibilities and accountabilities; and greater transparency, flexibility and value for money, as well as important independence from Ministers and a more central role for Parliament. There is no doubt that statistics matter. As well as informing us all about our economic, political, social and environmental worlds, they are crucial in a modern democracy to the judgments that people make about the promises that Governments make and their ability to keep them. In a rapidly changing economy and society, statistics matter more and more to a wider and wider range of users.
	The UK statistics system already has great strengths, and its technical and professional capability is recognised as world class. The modern world places demands on our statistics system and, alongside developing consistent quality, we must improve public confidence in official statistics. The new statistics system set out in the Bill will help us to achieve both. It can evolve in the light of new, shifting statistical demands and experience, and it is the next step in the Chancellor's reform of the machinery of economic governance, which began in 1997 with the statutory independence of the Bank of England, followed by independence for the Competition Commission and the Financial Services Authority. Each reform, like the reform in the Bill, set out in legislation independent, credible institutions with a clear remit from Government or Parliament, with decisions taken at arms-length and full reporting with maximum transparency.
	The quality and coherence of statistics across the UK will be improved, and we welcome the full participation of all the devolved Administrations in the new approach. We have retained as the basis for the Bill the framework for national statistics—perhaps the most radical reform of statistics for 30 years—that we introduced in 2000. We have retained, too, the long-established, well-supported decentralised system of UK statistics, whose considerable strengths were widely acknowledged by respondents to our consultations, by the Treasury Committee and by the Statistics Commission. We want to use the opportunity offered by the Bill to make the Office for National Statistics—the single largest producer of national statistics—independent of Ministers. We believe that independence for the ONS and independent scrutiny and oversight of the statistical system as a whole are most effectively delivered by a single institution—hence the central importance of the independent statistics board in our arrangements.
	The board will have the core objective of promoting and safeguarding the quality, and comprehensiveness of official statistics as well as good practice. Following our proceedings on Report, it will do so in the wider public interest.
	We need the non-executive membership of the board to bring a wide range of skills, backgrounds and expertise to its work from business, academia, public service and other fields. The members of the board will be crucial to the credibility of the board and its ability to hold the National Statistician properly to account for the running of the executive office and, where necessary, to challenge Government Departments and Ministers on the quality and integrity of the statistics for which they are responsible.
	Crucially, the board will no longer be answerable to Ministers. It will answer directly to Parliament. Parliament will therefore play a central role in the future of our statistics system and will play an important role in holding the system to account. It will also set arrangements whereby the accountability function will operate. Ultimately, it is for Parliament to decide the arrangements that it wishes to have in place and the relationship that it wishes to strike with the board. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House takes an active interest in that, and is considering the comments that have been made throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
	The Bill's provisions, importantly, set out a way of enhancing data sharing in a way that has been widely welcomed by those in the statistics field. Stronger sharing of administrative data can improve the quality of statistical data and analysis, and our ability to make policy and judge its impact, and it can reduce the burden on those responsible for completing the surveys on which many of our statistics depend. The Bill provides, therefore, for the increased sharing of personal data between the board and other parts of Government where that sharing is for the sole purpose of statistical production and analysis. Of course, it is vital that the confidentiality of such data is properly protected, so we are taking the opportunity in the Bill to increase the safeguards and sanctions on the disclosure of personal data, including a tough criminal sanction for its unlawful disclosure.
	We are using the Bill as an opportunity finally to establish proper employment status and rights for registrars in England and Wales. This is a matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East(Dr. Iddon) has campaigned tirelessly in his years in the House. The Bill will make the 1,700 registration officers employees of local government and give them access for the first time to the rights and protections that are already available to others. It will ensure that registration officers retain their current terms and conditions on transfer to local authority employment.
	This has been a thorough and productive scrutiny process. I hope hon. Members who have given so much to the work of scrutiny have found it as constructive and useful as I have. I thank in particular the hon. Members who led from the Opposition Front Benches—the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy). I thank also the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie).
	I hope Members will agree that, even though we may not have reached a meeting of minds on some of the detail, there is much more on which we agree in principle. I welcome the support that has been given for a number of particular proposals in the Bill. Whatever our remaining differences, I hope all Members will agree that there is no doubt that the Bill leaves the House in better shape than when it started. That is the proper role of Parliament, and Members have played a full part in its scrutiny and improvement. I commend the Bill to the House.

Theresa Villiers: We have finally reached Third Reading. There was a point when we wondered when Report stage would ever appear on the agenda, but eventually it did, after several weeks. From the lack of attendance for part of the debate today, it seems that much of the House thought that it had not yet arrived.
	The scrutiny process has indeed been useful. We would like to have seen many further changes to the Bill, and we hope that the debate will continue in a lively fashion in the other place.
	We will not vote against the Bill tonight because we agree with significant aspects of it. We welcome the reduction in ministerial influence over the statistical services; the establishment of an independent board to oversee Government statistics; the new code of practice; the fact that the reforms will apply across the whole of the UK, including the devolved Administrations; and the extension of employment rights to registrars.
	We have long called for politics and spin to be taken out of official statistics, which is vital important if people are to trust them. It is also vital to secure this goal if we are to entrench economic stability in our economy. Like a doctor taking the temperature of her patient, any Chancellor desperately needs to know the unvarnished facts about the state of the economy. No Chancellor should ever make the mistake of believing his own propaganda. However, although the Bill goes in the right direction, towards the calls made by Conservative Members for independent statistics, it is too timid to achieve the crucial goal of ensuring that official statistics are, from now on, free from political interference.
	The Bill should be all about letting go. It lets go of certain functions and passes them to independent institutions. However, if the Government want real economic reform, they should prise away from Ministers the powers over statistics to which the Bill allows them to cling—the power to keep statistics out of the scope of the code of conduct, the power to determine the budget for statistical services, and the power to determine pre-release rules.
	Let me take a canter through some of the issues of interest and controversy that we have discussed over the past few weeks of scrutiny. We have acknowledged the importance of using administrative data for statistical purposes. I am delighted that that is confirmed in the Bill. There is consensus that such data can be a rich source of information for statisticians and can cut costs for Government and for business because of the reduced number of surveys that will be needed if administrative data can be relied on. Throughout the scrutiny process, however, we have sought assurances from Government on the confidentiality of administrative information. As we have made plain, we would strongly resist any attempts to divert census or other administrative data into the forthcoming national identity database, and we urge Parliament to continue to monitor the use of personal data for statistical purposes with great care too see how the arrangements operate in practice. As well as the self-evident privacy concerns that we have discussed, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) referred, we must also recognise that any failure to safeguard confidentiality would also threaten statistical projects if it deterred people from disclosing sensitive information.
	We have debated extensively the institutional structures proposed in the Bill. The Opposition remain concerned that the proposal to merge the functions carried out by the ONS and the Statistics Commission represents a step backwards in our progress towards a better and more impartial statistical system. We are concerned about the loss of the independent watchdog. Moreover, granting to the successor to the commission responsibility for the production of statistics will damage its credibility in providing impartial scrutiny of the statistical system.
	It is also a matter of regret that the Minister has resisted calls for the Bill to enhance and strengthen the status of the National Statistician, which is a key part of a successful and independent statistical system. Only if she is viewed as the leader of the Government statistical service, with real clout to promote excellence and best practice right across the system, including within Departments, will this reform achieve the goals that the Government have set for it. Only then will she be able to provide the professional backing to enable statisticians to resist pressure from Departments to slip below the highest standards of integrity and impartiality. Only if she has the power to push for co-ordination and consistency will this reform address and mitigate some of the inherent drawbacks of our decentralised system and help to deal with the fragmentation problems that, as the Minister acknowledged, have existed in relation to data following the devolution process.
	Perhaps the most significant weakness in the Bill is the fact that it effectively gives Ministers the right to decide whether the new code of practice and the full rigour of the reforms will apply to their departmental statistics. If they choose, they can keep the board away from important indicators and figures on public services. It is not sufficient for the Minister merely to say that he expects the board to promote the code as a model of good practice for all Departments, since he is giving it inadequate tools to ensure that those Departments are brought into line if they fall below the standards required by the code.
	The Bill would have been greatly strengthened had Ministers' power over funding the board also been removed or constrained. Every Member of the House knows that the person who sets the budget or writes the cheque has significant power in any organisation. Under the present Chancellor, more than any other, the Treasury has cast an ever-lengthening shadow over a vast range of Government activities. Any Minister will be familiar with bruising battles over funding. Yet, under the Bill, the statistics board will have no Minister outside the Treasury to fight its corner for a share of resources. Earlier, we were told that, being internal to the Treasury, the board was likely to get a better deal. I am not sure that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs would agree with that, given the settlements that it has received recently. The Gershon process also seems to indicate that those departments directly linked to the Treasury do not get a special deal or more favourable or generous treatment.
	The Minister has promised us that the new independent framework would cover financial arrangements but has failed to tell us how that process would work. He has promised us a transparent formula for funding but so far has failed to be at all transparent about it. The longer he spoke on that in Committee, the more concerned the Opposition became. The Bill gives Parliament no role in relation to funding beyond ordinary methods of scrutiny. The Opposition believe that Parliament should call the shots on funding. Putting the budget in the hands of a Joint Committee of both Houses would provide the expertise, gravitas and impartiality to ensure that the funding process could never be politicised by Ministers. In that way, we could have imported some admirable qualities from the structure that governs the National Audit Office.
	The Minister spoke repeatedly, with warmth and enthusiasm, about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, and yet Parliament's role in relation to the statistical service under the Bill seems no stronger than it is in relation to any ordinary department. It is a matter of regret that the Government have rejected a structure that would have put Parliament in the driving seat in relation to the statistical system and its funding arrangements.
	Pre-release is emblematic of so many of the defects in our current system. Our current rules give pre-release access to more statistics, to more people and for longer periods than any other country in the developed world. They give Ministers far too much scope to use early access to statistical information to manage the news agenda and discount bad news in advance. That kind of activity can do so much to undermine trust in official statistics. In that area, the Government's reforms in 2000 probably made the situation worse by reinforcing ministerial control over pre-release rules and reducing the constraint that the head of the government statistical service had previously been able to place on pre-release access.
	We have acknowledged the case for limited pre-release access to data. If the reform is to succeed, however, we believe that pre-release rules should be tightened. Even more importantly, we believe that the board should have the final say over what those rules should be. Sadly, sympathetic as he might be, the Minister no doubt has his hands tied by Ministers in other Departments who are anxious to maintain the political advantages that the current system gives them. Rather than entrenching ministerial control on pre-release rules into statute as the Bill proposes, we should trust the board to get the decision right on that. Neither I nor the Minister should make that decision; neither of us is truly disinterested. If the Government really want to let go of statistics, painful as that is, they should let go of pre-release as well—not to see it abandoned, but to let the board decide what the rules on pre-release should be.
	Today, we are making progress towards the independence for statistical services that the Opposition would like, but not enough. Today could have been an historic day for economic governance in the UK—but it will not be. It could have been the day when we set the statisticians free of political interference and took the spin out of statistics for good—but it will not be. The Minister has steadfastly resisted our calls to make that final jump, that final break with a discreditable past and the manipulation and dissembling that has become such a notorious hallmark of this Government. It would take an act of political courage—not to say political irony—for the Government who have elevated news management to the level of a political creed to be responsible for entrenching impartiality, objectivity and honesty into all official statistics. Sadly, the Minister will not, or cannot, take that step. The Government cannot quite let go. If the Government will not listen to us and will not listen to the hundreds of concerned experts and stakeholder groups, I hope that they will be forced to listen to a message loud and clear from the other place—that their reforms are welcome and go in the right direction, but that they are not sufficient and must be significantly strengthened before the British public can again place their trust and confidence in official statistics.

Brian Iddon: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary mentioned the registration service. I thank hon. Members for not tabling amendments against that aspect of the Bill—not one amendment was tabled against that part of its contents.
	I shall be delighted on 9 May when I visit Leicester for the annual conference of the Society of Registration Officers, of which I am the patron for England and Wales. I have addressed nine previous conferences in all parts of the country. On occasion, I have had to hang my head down because I have been so full of excuses for why my Government have not delivered employment rights to the more than 1,700 registrars and superintendent registrars who work so ably across England and Wales in every register office, which all of us need to use—sometimes in tragic circumstances, but mainly in happy circumstances when we have births or marriages in the family.
	This year will be my 10th address. I will be delighted to say that my Government have at last delivered what registration service officers have been asking for—the chance to go to an employment tribunal if they are unfairly dismissed or sacked. It does happen. I have seen some sad cases where people have had to leave the service under a cloud and they have not had the rights that nearly all other workers have throughout the land.
	As my hon. Friend said, registration officers are employed, appointed and housed in offices. Those offices are sometimes not very good. The office in Bolton is now delightful, although it did not used to be. The pensions are also provided by local authorities. It is therefore proper that the responsibility for discipline should move to the control of local authorities. The Society of Registration Officers has been asking for that for a long time, and recently it has been supported by Unison. Those people who have been campaigning with me for that, and those who have been campaigning at the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services as well, will be delighted by this evening's events.
	On a lighter side, it was a privilege to listen to hon. Members who know far more than I do about statistics. I learned a lot during the course of the Bill's passage through Committee. It occasionally got difficult to listen, though, so I started to count the number of times that people tripped over the word "statistics", and particularly over the word "statistical". I commend the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers)—she tripped over the word "statistical" only once this evening. I am concerned, however, about the Bill's passage in the other place because there are more dentures there. I imagine that when Members in the House of Lords start to pronounce those words, false teeth might flow all over the Chamber.
	I have lobbied a lot of Ministers and I have been travelling on two parallel tracks. One is with the Department of Trade and Industry—I will not deal with that now—which is where the responsibility for employment legislation lies. The other relates to my lobbying of successive Economic and Financial Secretaries who have been responsible for the part of the Office for National Statistics that concerns me. I commend my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who has listened not only to me but to Unison and the Society of Registration Officers, and has allowed us to deliver something extremely important to more than 1,700 people who have awaited this legislation for some time. My own detailed history of involvement in the issue dates back to 1985. I shall not bore Members with it this evening, but it has been a long battle. SORO's campaign dates back even further—it has waited a very long time for this moment.
	The Bill does something more important than delivering what I have described; it also paves the way for the first major reform of the civil registration service since the service was set up as long ago as 1837. I think that all Members would agree that it is time the service was brought into the 21st century, as I am sure it will be. What worried registration officers was the possibility that as we reformed the service, local authorities might realise that they needed fewer of them. Some battles, in my view unnecessary, might have arisen as a result of that. However, as we have now given registration officers the right to go to an industrial tribunal, if local authorities try to remove them from their posts they will feel far more confident about the major reforms of the civil registration service that are just around the corner.
	The Treasury tried to initiate some of those reforms through a regulatory reform order, the largest ever committed to the new Committee that came into being in 2001 under the Regulatory Reform Act of that year. Sadly, under the chairmanship of Peter Pike, the former Member of Parliament for Burnley, the Committee rejected the move. I know that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary now intends to use secondary legislation as a way of reforming the service. I thank my hon. Friend, and I look forward with confidence—as, I am sure, do SORO and Unison—to reform of a service that has long been in need of reform.

Vincent Cable: Yes; some of the strongest comments have come from Australia and Canada, for example. That might merely reflect the personalities concerned, but those countries have similar systems that appear to work well, and the people who have had experience of running them continue to express worries about how the British legislation is couched. That issue has yet to be satisfactorily addressed.
	For my party, there are four remaining areas of concern about the Bill. The following comments on them will largely parallel what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) has said. All of those concerns have been discussed this evening, so I do not need to rehearse the arguments in detail, but I shall briefly address each one. The most important relates to the pre-release procedures. The Minister's response is to say that secondary legislation is on its way and that that is reassuring because it will have greater force than a code of conduct operated by the statistics board. Unfortunately, we have no idea what will be in that secondary legislation. We do not know whether it will be an improvement. It might well be an improvement, in which case all the anxieties that people have expressed will be ill-founded and we can all sleep safely and soundly. However, as we have no idea what will be in the secondary legislation, we are not yet reassured.
	When we ended our discussion of the matter, the Minister's parting comments worried me slightly. In response to points made by Liberal Democrat Members and others about British comparative performance, it was noted that other countries also release data on previous days. So far as I can establish, only two other countries do that, and that is restricted to overnight release and hedged around with great restrictions on the number of people to whom access is given and the number of items for which that provision is granted. Therefore, the Government will have to move a long way in their secondary legislation to provide the sort of reassurance that Members and people outside this House seek.
	The second area of anxiety remains in the field of governance, and particularly in the separation of functions—and especially the National Statistician, non-executive members of the board and the scrutiny function. Earlier, we had a frustrating discussion in which the Minister agreed with what we were saying and we agreed with what he was saying, but he said, "At the end of the day, we can't include what you want in the Bill." That might be the case for legislative reasons, but I think that the Government might be able to deal with this issue in a satisfactory way and remove it from the list of problematic issues. Let me offer my suggestion. One of the organisations that has expressed concern about the lack of clarity in the governance procedures is the Bank of England. It said that the role of the National Statistician was not clear. If it is possible to do so, it would be desirable to get a letter from the Governor of the Bank of England stating that he has read the Minister's comments in this House and that he is duly reassured and is now satisfied that the procedures and the demarcation of roles are clear and that there is no further doubt over the issue. If such a letter could be obtained, I do not think that any Member would quibble any further and we would accept that the matter has been dealt with in an entirely satisfactory way and that there is no need to change the legislation any further.
	The third area of concern is to do with the issue of the two tiers—the official statistics and the national statistics. We have gone a long way in trying to work with the Government model. They have made a strong case for a certain kind of model that distinguishes the two types of statistics. There is certainly a case for doing that, but we continue to be troubled by the fact that there is no ultimate veto over a ministerial veto. The Minister has the last resort, however much a set of official statistics is being abused at a departmental level. There appears to be absolutely no come-back to ensure that integrity can be restored.
	There are various ways in which a mechanism could be introduced. We suggested one this evening, but the Government did not find it satisfactory. However, a mechanism has to be found from somewhere, so that within this decentralised system, abuses of official statistics at a ministerial level can be safeguarded against. As the Bill proceeds to another place, I hope that the Government will come up with a formula for dealing with that problem.
	The final set of difficulties is the one that we discussed a few moments ago, and it relates to the role of the Treasury. Like the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, I am not anti-Treasury in any respect. It is has a very high level of competence and integrity, and I have no particular quarrel with the way that the current Chancellor has used his powers in making appointments, so there is no gripe or political point to be made here. The central issue is that the most sensitive Government statistics are those relating to economic data, such as employment and inflation statistics. It is therefore all the more important to ensure that the people who will exercise independent scrutiny and management of statistics are not appointed by the Minister with the most direct interest in influencing those statistics. It is not a question of the present incumbent abusing those powers; it is the potential for abuse that we must safeguard against. Channelling responsibility through the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office was one mechanism, and others have been suggested. However, it is very important that the Government acknowledge this potential conflict of interest.
	Like the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, I look forward to seeing the Bill when it returns to us from the other place. I suspect, on the basis of certain comments made by Lords, that there will be some difficult amendments for the Government to circumvent. There are strong feelings about this Bill and I look forward to debating it again when it returns.

Alun Michael: I thought that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) rather undervalued the process that we have been through in Committee and since. We are taking part in an historic event, and I should tell colleagues who were in Committee that I thoroughly enjoyed being involved in the debates. Our proceedings have been particularly good, the issues have been intelligently approached by Members in all parts of the House, and the Minister has responded to our concerns.
	I particularly welcome Government amendmentNo. 48, which has been agreed today and makes it clear what statistics are for. There is always a danger of statistics being treated as though they are for statisticians—as though they are merely neutral, arid facts. They are not. The amendment made it clear that the wider public interest has to be served by the preparation, collection and publication of statistics. It made it clear that the purpose of statistics is to inform the public so that they can understand the issues that those statistics reflect, and to inform public service delivery. In other words, their purpose is to paint a picture of reality.
	I have never believed it right to say that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. There are lies, damn lies and statistics misinterpreted, misapplied and misused. However, statistics used properly and engaged with can lead to an evidence-based approach to debate in this House and elsewhere, and to an evidence-based approach to public policy. In other words, statistics are not just for statisticians—they are far more important than that. They are there for all of us who are concerned about public policy.
	Of course, the independence and objectivity of statistics is vital and basic, which is why I applaud the Government for introducing this Bill; and of course it is right for Members to be concerned about improving the level of objectivity and independence in order to ensure the integrity of statistics.
	I say to the hon. Member for Twickenham(Dr. Cable) that the level of public confidence in statistics is probably a reflection of the low level of public debate in the media, rather than of the level of trust that can rightly be placed in statistics. In my experience—I am not talking about statistics produced only by the Government, but by local government and many other agencies—they are generally produced with integrity and are always subject to challenge. We should always ask whether they have been prepared on the right basis and whether the right questions have been asked. The general quality of the preparation of statistics in this country is very high indeed. To treat them with disdain or disrespect, as the media frequently do, or to suggest that they can be interfered with by Ministers, is actually flying in the face of reality.
	My particular concern is to ensure that statistics are fit for purpose in terms of their effective use—not just at a national level, but at local and sub-regional level, as well as national and regional levels. That has been the subject of serious debate during the passage of the Bill. I underline again the fact that statistics are not ends in themselves, but the means to such ends as crime reduction, an improved quality of life or better service delivery in health and education, which are vital to our constituents.
	I hope that the result of amendment No. 48—building the purposes of statistics directly into the Bill—will translate into action by the National Statistician and the statistics board. We want an effective focus on ensuring that the relevant national and official statistics provide evidence of local variations and service needs, for example. By local variations, I mean not just local authority areas, but ward and sub-ward level statistics. Those statistics should help us to ensure that, wherever people live, they get the service and response that they need, as reflected in the figures produced.
	Very often, those of us who have been involved in public life at whatever level will say, "Give me the facts"—and very often it is difficult to get hold of them because the wrong questions have been asked and the wrong statistics collected. Once the board is appointed, I hope that it will not just ask questions by looking backwards—perhaps to what were important issues of public policy last year or 10 years ago. Actually, the board should press policy makers to look at the statistics and ask questions about next year or the next five, 10 or 20 years. We should be collecting information now that will help to inform public policy for the very long term. That means encouraging the confidence and engagement of the public with facts.
	It is a very sad fact that nowadays an opinion expressed in a blog can be repeated by a national journalist on the front page of one of the less responsible newspapers in a way that may appear to give it equal value to the important statistics produced by the National Statistician, the Office for National Statistics and, indeed, by other authorities. I think that undermines the quality of debate about important issues in this country. That is why I believe that this Bill is one of the most important that has come before the House this year.
	To provide one example, it has always seemed to me that in dealing with the reduction of crime and disorder it is very important to deal with the facts. Most people's view of crime and disorder in the local area is informed by what they see in the local newspapers. Many people therefore think that crime has gone up in areas where it has, in fact, gone down. I recall a recent discussion atSt. Mellons in my constituency in which a police representative referred to a slight growth in burglary over the past year or so. When we asked what exactly that meant, it turned out that it was a fairly small increase in burglary, and those who had engaged with the issue over many years knew full well that the level of burglary in the area was far below what it had been 10 years earlier. It is important to be able to make those comparisons. It is also important, when the police and the local authority carry out their obligations to reduce crime in the area, that they know what they are dealing with.
	At national level, we have very good crime statistics, which are tested by the figures in the British crime survey, which reflects people's experience of crime. That tests whether the police statistics actually reflect reality, which is good. However, if that is not carried down to local level, so that people know what is happening in the city and in the local ward, it is impossible for them to be completely sure of what they are trying to do in terms of reducing crime as well as of chasing after offenders.
	I could repeat that example across many other public services, but I shall mention just one. Analysing crime and violent crime in the city of Cardiff resulted in—

Michael Fallon: First, I want to thank the Minister, who has listened during the Committee stage, even though he did not listen to everything that we said. I am pleased that we have put a definition of "public good" into statute, and that the points about dismissal for misbehaviour and about the directions have been cleared up. He has certainly listened, and I want to thank him for that.
	Of course, serious flaws remain in the Bill. I shall not repeat them at length, but I have identified four, as did the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). First, the board remains a muddle of non-executive and executive members, and that is a problem. Secondly, it remains appointed and funded by Treasury Ministers, just as the existing Office for National Statistics is. That, too, is a problem. Thirdly, there is no full supervisory duty for the board right across Whitehall. Despite tabling a whole series of amendments, we have not been able to persuade the Minister to include that specific duty. Fourthly, as everyone has said, Ministers will still control one of the most generous and favourable systems of pre-release in the world.
	The Ministers appear to have started out with reasonable intentions for the Bill, but at some point between the consultation and the drafting, somebody somewhere changed their minds. We have had good debates in Committee and in the House today, but it is interesting that the Minister has been unable to adduce any evidence from systems elsewhere in the world to support the changes that he is making. On the contrary, the countries that have put their statistics on to a statutory basis have done so in a much more independent way than the Minister is proposing today.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the Commonwealth countries. I should like to bring to the House's attention the example of Ireland, where legislation was passed in 1993. The statistics board in Ireland is completely non-executive; it has no role in management. It has an advisory and supervisory role. Its director general—that is what the national statistician is called there—is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister and works to the Prime Minister's office, completely independently of any other Government Department. Critically, it is the director general, not Ministers, who deals with the issue of pre-release access, which is limited to a matter of hours. So there are still flaws in the Bill that need attention in another place.
	I want to say a quick word about the Office for National Statistics. There is a danger that, while we have admired the plumage, we are forgetting the dying bird. It is clear to me—and it is certainly clear to the Statistics Commission—that the ONS is under huge pressure at the moment as a result of the reorganisation required by the Bill, the imposition of efficiency targets, the relocation to Newport and the preparatory work for the 2011 census, including this year's pilot schemes. I am concerned about the multiple effects of those various changes on a small department of state.
	To get the new board up and running by April next year will require a huge amount of work and senior management time. Meanwhile the ONS is required to meet challenging efficiency targets—I understand that the three initial targets for 2006 were missed. The modernisation programme is creating enormous burdens for staff. The relocation was mentioned in Committee. About 260 staff have to leave for Newport before next year and the rest by 2010, only a year before the census. In three years' time few senior staff will be left in London, so I am concerned about the need to maintain the integrity of the department while all those changes are taking place.
	The new board will have primary responsibility for the census, which will be a huge exercise, not least in garnering public support behind such an essential undertaking. The Statistics Commission wrote to the Financial Secretary on 1 February, pointing out that there were
	"serious concerns requiring the closest attention of those who are responsible for setting the targets for ONS as well as those responsible for meeting them".
	I hope the Financial Secretary will bear those concerns in mind as we wish the Bill well and speed its passage through to another House where more attention will obviously be required for some of the flaws we have identified.

Tony Wright: I shall be extremely brief, as I cannot share in the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to those who have been involved in the scrutiny of the Bill, because I have not been involved in it, although I have watched it with interest from afar. The problem after the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), the patron of the Society of Registration Officers, is that now we all find it much more difficult to say the word "statistics".
	My approach to the measure has been to watch from afar the commentary and arguments about it, believing—as we all do—that we must give the statistical service far more independence than it has previously enjoyed. The underlying philosophy of the Bill is right, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was right to draw analogies with other parts of Government where we are trying to do the same thing. However, those of us who believe absolutely in the integrity and independence of the statistics service, who think the issues are more like those relating to electoral boundaries than to Government communications, want to insist on the importance of protecting that service. The test we have to apply is whether the new arrangements give enough independence to ensure that there can be no possible abuse in any foreseeable circumstances and create enough public trust, as we know that traditionally there has not been much trust on that front.
	I supported the Government tonight, but I still have questions about aspects of the Bill. Some of them have been put in an extremely helpful, constructive and civilised way—what a refreshing example that isto some Members who undertake such scrutiny—matched on the Government Benches by the Financial Secretary's civilised and courteous behaviour. My questions relate to the test, which will take place not in the serene circumstances of 10 o'clock on a Tuesday night, but at moments of political crisis, when huge arguments are raging about the nature of the statistics that are being issued. We need to develop a systemthat can withstand that test at the most critical times. I have often thought that we needed a statistical ombudsman, who would weigh in when party controversy is raging on statistical issues and who could simply tell us and the great British public what the facts of the matter are.
	I am not yet persuaded that we have got everything in the Bill right. I have no doubt at all that the direction of travel is right, which is why I wanted to support the Bill, but I hope that the Financial Secretary will recognise that we may not yet have arrived at the eventual destination. There is still a process to be undergone and I hope that the civilised and bipartisan way in which the Bill has been discussed so far will be continued right through to its final stage.

That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees)Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.

Stephen Pound: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to address the House on an issue of considerable concern to my constituents: crime and criminality on the London bus service. I am especially delighted to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), to the Front Bench. I could not have chosen a better Minister to respond to the debate than someone who has, for many years, shown a deep knowledge of, and commitment to, public transport in this country.
	I would like to draw for the House a picture of the collision between two worlds. On the one hand, we have one of the truly great success stories in modern public transport: the success of Transport for London and public buses in London. It is widely known that between 1999 and 2005, there was a 5 per cent. switch from private car usage to public transport in London. That is the only shift of its kind in any major city anywhere in the world. We have 2,300 more London buses than there were in 2000 and they are 16 per cent. fuller than they were then. We have a bus service that is noted for its reliability, and waiting times have been halved. We have a wheelchair-accessible transport system. The system works to reduce the emissions of fine particles—hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide—by using the new particulate filters, which reduce emissions by 90 per cent.
	While we have that success, we have another world—a darker, more dystopian world. That world is partly of perception and partly of reality. It is the world in which many of my constituents live and the world that many London Members will recognise. In my constituency, we have schoolchildren who are terrified to go on a bus. Teenage boys and girls come home and talk about being jacked, shanked, taxed, or peeled—words that are utterly foreign to me, but which refer to the habit of theft and robbery on the buses. Boys hide their mobile telephones under their belt at the back of their trousers, and their money in their socks.
	What is the reality? On the one hand, there is the undoubted glittering success of bus transport in London, and on the other there is the reality of the way in which bus transport is perceived by many constituents, particularly the young, but admittedly also the old, who feel threatened on the bus. Many young people feel that to sit on the bench seats at the back of a Volvo bus is to emulate a goat tethered in a pasture, surrounded by feral wolves, and that to enter the back of an articulated bus is to enter a piranha pool where threat is all around them. What is reality, and what is perception? That is an appropriate question, bearing in mind that all afternoon the House has been debating the dichotomy between empirical and anecdotal evidence.
	I am extremely grateful to Transport for London, and particularly to David Brown, the former managing director of surface transport, and Jeroen Weimar, his colleague, for spending a great deal of time discussing with me the statistics regarding crime on London buses. In March 2006, there were more than 4,000 reported crimes, which is 13 per cent. less than in January 2007, the nearest equivalent month. That represents one crime per 50,000 passenger journeys in the first quarter of 2006-07. The minute that I began to drill down into the statistics, I came across one of the most staggering that I have ever encountered: every year, there are 1.9 billion passenger journeys on London buses. That figure is not only greater than the population of India, which is 1.2 billion, but almost equivalent to the combined populations of China and India.
	The perception is that crime is often committed by the young. In 2006, some 75 per cent. of suspects were under 25, and a third were under 16. I contend that there is a geographical element to the problem of crime on London buses, and there are three main areas of concern. They include what I loosely call the south-east quadrant, made up of Croydon, Bromley, Bexley and Greenwich, where crime actually increased last year, and the London borough of Camden, where bus crime increased slightly. One of our distinguished parliamentary colleagues wishes me to draw the House's attention to the fact that he had his camera stolen on the N29 bus. The police and Arriva, the contractor, were incapable of retrieving the closed circuit television footage, because he could not give them the registration number of the bus on which he was robbed.
	The bus crime figures are down in Kingstonupon Thames, Wandsworth, the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Haringey and Barnet, but last year crime was higher in the west London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and Ealing, and one has to ask why that is. I utterly reject the case, which has been made by some who should know better, that there should be a withdrawal of, or time limit on, free travel for under-16s. I do not see free transport for young people as a problem; rather, I see it as a glorious opportunity, a key to unlocking the secrets of our city. When my constituents from Northolt say that they have never been to London, it makes me think how important it is for people to have access to transport that takes them across their capital city, their home. That view was supported by 80 per cent. of Londoners in a recent survey.

Gillian Merron: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	As a former bus conductor, my hon. Friend will know only too well that crime will always be a challenge for public transport operators. Public transport brings together large numbers of people, often in constrained spaces. That presents a particular temptation to thieves. Moreover, the transport network is an ever-evolving and hugely complex system—and just as transport develops, so do patterns of transport crime. That makes policing the network extremely challenging.
	While such crime may be challenging, it is being combated. The Metropolitan police transport operational command unit, to which my hon. Friend has referred, has been key to that endeavour. Funded by Transport for London and jointly staffed, it brings together transport and policing professionals to target crime on specific bus routes and corridors where crime has been identified as a particular problem. I hope that that will reassure hon. Members and their constituents. The command unit deploys over 1,200 uniformed staff across the transport network as a whole. Their deployment is intelligence-led and focuses resource where it can be most effective.
	As well as targeting serious crime directly, Transport for London is also working hard to tackle fare evasion, as research shows that fare evaders are often involved in other forms of crime. Transport for London has significantly increased the number of revenue protection inspectors on the bus network: by the end of March, there will be more than 300. They present a visible, uniformed presence to reassure passengers and assist drivers and the police when criminal behaviour is observed.
	Government funding has also enabled Transport for London to ensure that all of London's buses—more than 8,000—are fitted with CCTV. That not only provides much-needed evidence but deters would-be criminals and reassures passengers. Importantly, it is allowing more and more successful prosecutions when staff or passengers are assaulted, giving greater confidence to both staff and passengers.
	Transport for London is ensuring that drivers are encouraged to report any incidence of crime or antisocial behaviour, however minor. I very much support that. That allows Transport for London and the Metropolitan police to identify priority areas. The introduction of code red calls to report emergencies gives drivers direct contact with the central control room, and has made it easier for drivers to report incidents when they happen. Again, I hope that that will reassure hon. Members.
	Transport for London is not resting on its laurels. It has just finished consultation on its draft crime and disorder reduction strategy. That new initiative sets out its vision for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour and improving the public's perception of safety and security, about which my hon. Friend is particularly concerned.
	On youth crime, there has been some recent, and unfortunate, media coverage alleging increasing levels of yobbish behaviour on buses in London as a result of the Mayor's decision to extend free travel to under-18s in full-time education. It is important to get some perspective on the matter. Very few young people getting free travel in London cause difficulties on buses, and we must not forget that many young people are themselves victims of crime. While there have been anecdotal reports of higher rates of antisocial behaviour, the reality is that there has not been a notable increase in youth crime on London buses. Where youths are persistently causing trouble, the Home Office gave Transport for London, in September 2006, powers to employ antisocial behaviour orders against persistent offenders. That sets out the reality of free travel for the under-18s. I hope that it will be continued in London. I am aware from my hon. Friend and others that it is under threat from Conservative Members of the Greater London authority who think that it should be terminated or changed. That would be a sad day.
	The Government are determined to reduce crime and the fear of crime on our vital public transport services. People in London and across the UK have the absolute right to bus travel that is safe and unintimidating. The Government will continue to work closely with Transport for London and operators to ensure that that happens.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.